XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
September 26, 2020, 05:04:53 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!  
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 1027
1  Ultimate Audio Playback / Cables (Community induced) / Re: Lush^3 on: September 26, 2020, 12:18:20 pm

Practicing some text for explanations of the sound ...

(for a teaser, please look here)

The difference between the Lush and the Lush^2 are most certainly there, and the differences between the various configurations of the Lush^2 are even more certainly there (none sounds the same).
But now the Lush^3-e ...

We already knew from the Lush^2 that what actually happens is that frequency ranges get amplified or attenuated (this can be more than one range, depending on the configuration). It doesn't work like an equalizer because the effect is xxx times more strong and always remains a natural effect (that I personally could tell).

With the Lush^3, for what I have listened to so far (which is 3 configs only) the emphasis seems to have shifted downwards a lot. I mean, there is less emphasis on the highs (somehow now they can't disturb you either, as it seems) and there is a lot of energy now at the bottom. But also right above that (say low mid) and it makes the sound much more robust. Firm.
I say this, because I am tempted to because of a more lacking, dunno, mid range of some time. But this is hard to explain. I mean, voices are crazily emphasized (very good), there is an unprecedented speed which is mainly lower frequency impeded (on/off sounds like voices can have it, but synths too), bells are so so beautifully rendered now just because of spades more of resolution, but
But somehow, with those 3 configs I tried so far, the area of the snare drum is underwhelmed. Btw, it is also the only flaw I currently see (for 3 out of 1023 configs - oops) but this could be already because I so explicitly "observe".
All, really all jumps out, but the snare stays behind.

If you'd observe this yourself, you
a. will not accept that a USB cable can imply these huge (I have no other word) changes;
b. you should know that internally there is still the original Lush^1.

On a side note I am not able to explain how this can be so DAC-Output(!!)-frequency-related. Thus what the heck actually happens in that USB stream.

Previously (Lush^2) this was just a "yeah, we can influence emphasis on frequencies", but this ?
This is just too much of it. It is the Lush^2 squared (haha).

People may know my type of music, but if we keep that simpler and in the form we may all know it, it is Yello.
Well, ALL I played so far of such a genre (but worse than Yello in general) I could not recognize at all. Thus so so much can things change, only because the emphasis to frequencies is different.
Because the speed hence resolution seems to be 20 fold (higher speed does a lot more than you can imagine).
Transfer this to "airy" and you will be able to see how all changes of this in the base.

Is it still a Lush cable then ?
Well, I could not name it differently because it just is in the base. So does it still sound "lush" ?

Yesterday I was trying to see through that (the direct answer should be No), but there is so enormously much going on (without getting tired of it !) that there's no space to think this over. It is one big literal feast of music, and I honestly can't care about lush sound.
More making a detour, I guess it still is because of the way more warm sound (you will be shocked about that alone). This is to be combined with the lesser emphasized highs (this could be a good thing and it most certainly is not a stuffed ear thing), but before you are able to judge for real, along comes a zzzziiinggg bell you never heard before.
Or the vibrating 500Hz+ string which you never heard vibrating. Or that so clean beautiful voice. And the deep down earth umpf without being annoying because it always sounds the same (tuning for too high level lows and it will annoy).

I recall playing Jeff Wayne - War of the Worlds yesterday. I play it once per 6 months or so. Un-re-cog-niz-able. Full with metal rattling sounds which *are* there when you watch the movie, and which you did not miss when you played it "yesterday". Huh ?
Yes. Huh.


2  Ultimate Audio Playback / Cables (Community induced) / Re: Lush^3 on: September 26, 2020, 11:46:42 am

Anthony, believe it or not, but only last Sunday I suddenly knew how to make a ^3 out of the Lush. And Monday I had my own playing ...
(by now we have so many braids and hoses and whatever stuff, that we apparently can make a new cable in one day without purchasing anything)

I am not sure whether it is known somewhere that we were asked to make a Lush^3 because we also provided an ET^3 and thus "^3" would be possible. This was maybe 10 months ago. But since the Lush(^2) has a different topology than the Ethernet cables (BTW, you have an ET^3 :-) a similar build-up as how the ET^3 is built up, leaks from shield to shield. Yea, you won't believe such a thing, but it just is so. Thus :

Envision that you have a certain length of material. It could be a paper. On both sides of that paper you have a metal plate. And now the plates are connected (I forgot the resistance, but say 100K Ohm).

This connection is sparkle like. Thus, the measured resistance is not even stable, BUT the USB protocol can't bear it. It is real electrical influence on or the data or the impedance (that now going off the USB2 standard too much).

When we made a second Lush^2 completely new, while the first was formed around an existing Lush^2 (like Lush^2 comprises of the physical Lush^1) and both did not work, I had the magnificent idea to measure the resistance between two shields those NOT being connected. Et voilá.

You really won't believe this stuff, unless you experienced it with your own hands and eyes.
Cables already were a mystery, but it is far worse than we could imagine.

In the end this is to our benefit, because we must be able to utilize it now we know it.

Mani and Anthony, for fun, take your Blaxius^2 (Anthony may have it still in the box), disconnect all the (B, W, Y, R) wires at both ends and measure IIRC between Y and R. You will see resistance ... (and not an infinite one :-).
If you don't see anything I forgot at which cable this emerges without us knowing at first. So, assumed it is indeed the Blaxius^2 ...

I use the Blaxius^2 myself since the day it exists. When we later found out about this (which is not a shortcut to the signal of any kind), I thought "oh well, if it gets its good sound from that phenomenon, we're good". Haha.
So with that analogue cable, the shields even actively interact. Of course, when you'd connect those two shields per the provided connector, the interactivity vanishes (resistance of ~0 Ohms).
So now you know. Leaving out the connection between Y and R will imply a specialty.
... I just looked at my own, and I have not connected the Y. So we must be subject to special voodoo indeed.

If you now can imagine that a USB cable *will* produce only errors (like 20K errors per second) when the topology regarding this nuisance is off, you may start to be able to see what this "shielding" phenomenon may do all more.
Apparently the lot can behave like a capacitor or something like that, and transfer current by "such" means.
Oh ?
Well, then maybe it is time to investigate similar between signal and ground wires in one cable. I mean, I should (now) be able to create such leakage between signal and ground.
Eh ...

I suppose that when we measure capacitance of a cable, we already measure similar. But this is capacitance. In this case the "wires" (shields) are connected. But are they really ? can the multi meter possibly be fooled ?
(I recall we tried two meters, because at first I could not believe it)
Anyway thinking further, it could be so that the capacitance of the cable changes severely and that therefore that Lush^3 trial did not work.

To be sure you got the right idea of this :
What happened was that a perfectly working Lush^2 was wrapped with another shield and extra outer sleeve, and that did not work at all.
Build up one from the ground with basically the same materials but with different isolation than the "yellow" outer sleeve as we know it - same problem.
Because this isolation material was so different, there is IMO no way that "sparkles" come through (and that even without electricity). But some severe (magnetic ?) field is formed by that topology.
(btw I could have measured such field, but at the time I did not think of that)

Anything else ?

3  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Tidal Playlists on: September 24, 2020, 08:28:19 am

Thank you for the feedback, Ramesh !
4  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Tidal Playlists on: September 22, 2020, 12:16:35 pm

As far as I know such mixed Playlists are covered for.
I must be a little bit cautious because since the Playlists functionality was created, the MQA setup has changed somewhat;

Assumed the errors were an other kind of accident, take good notice of what the bits per second shows (in the top of the Coverart during Unattended); it would be the only measure to check whether all is correct.


PS: Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall that a Playlist may contain "a" track, but that you in the US (me in NL) are not authorized for that track anyway. This can produce oddities (error ?). Thus, if I'd create a Tidal Playlist with Earth & Fire in it (which is Dutch - not Earth, Wind & Fire smirk), chances exist that this is not authorized in the US. Still (I think) the track would be loaded from the Playlist.
5  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Tidal Playlists on: September 21, 2020, 07:59:59 am

Yes ...

Search for Playlist in here :
XXHighEnd Model 2.08 - Easier Install, More Tidal, MQA Testing, SQ improved

Notice that you can not create Playlists within Tidal by means of XXHighEnd, but I don't think that is what you mean.

6  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: Can't install NOS1 driver on: September 12, 2020, 03:02:25 pm

Well done !
Good that it's all solved now.

7  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: Can't install NOS1 driver on: September 12, 2020, 09:19:34 am

But after unzipping, you still should compare the files (number of) with the contents of the zip I sent.

Check XXHighEnd for the Driver Signing still to be Off; All the Google finds still lead to that for this message (FWIW).

8  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: Can't install NOS1 driver on: September 12, 2020, 08:30:06 am

Mani, what about considering the message to be true and that somehow the copying from whatever source prevented a file to come along ? Or, that the unzipping of the original zip file (I guess you have that) disallows that file(s) ?
As we know, similar can happen with the install of XXHighEnd.

9  Ultimate Audio Playback / Cables (Community induced) / Re: The Lush on: September 11, 2020, 05:49:31 pm

Hey Badger,

By pure coincidence yesterday I got fed-up with that setting I proposed on A/S - for quite exactly the reasons you now mention. However :

After trying some other XXHighEnd settings for worse or even better (which is of course what "we" do as well Happy ), nothing satisfied me at all any more (but I did not go back to the "Consensus"). In the end - and now for those with the Mach III Audio PC, I found that the way more "sharp" (as in pinpointed) 24 core setting instead of an also quite consensus 20 core setting (for the 28 core processor), ... that this did all the bad tricks. Thus, while the 24 core setting shows way better attack on everything, this may just be the thing that the "consensus" setting can bear. But the setting proposed on A/S is ... well ... too edgy;
My wife complained within minutes, but I held on for a month or so (she had to hold on too ;-).

I am now thus trying yet an other setting I ever back found and liked and just like I never could tell about the "A/S" setting in here yet because I was not sure, I will take as much time as needed to express my ideas if for the better at all.
Meanwhile I could also try your and Ramesh' setting.

Thank you very much for your feedback !
10  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: Can't install NOS1 driver on: September 11, 2020, 05:41:25 pm
Hi Mani - this is what I just sent you by email (I surely received yours (twice)) :

Although your screenshots are barely readable, it is my estimate that this is about the Driver Signing not being shut off. This can be done n XXHE settings, remember ?

After changing the setting, reboot (IIRC).

But in here (forum) I am able to read what's in your screenshots and now I don't know. The message about the catalog file and the tampering is unknown to me, although I'd understand what it means.
Try the Signing thing anyway, and let me know whether it helps. By forum would be the best, assumed others may run into this as well ?

Kind regards,
11  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: RME Dac with no Kernel Streaming on: September 10, 2020, 09:31:48 am
Hey RW,

My first advice would be : bring it back. It seems that it will hunt you with oddities forever. Additionally, I think (not sure !) there's some Chinese XMos driver in order and they don't shine for "compatibility". Tweaking, yes (you won't like that).

Reading through that, tells me enough. Do notice that the most "severe" problem is the sampling rate which won't change automatically, which is why you probably won't understand what is happening. I did not sort it out, but think like : always first set the sampling rate in the control panel (be sure it took the change) and then next start playback which matches that sampling rate. And 384 is max, as it seems.

The fact that Foobar works does not tell a thing because it can work with WDM and as far as I recall also in non-exclusive mode (the good old not bit perfect resampling mode). Read : In Foobar it still does not work, but you don't notice that the used sampling rate is different from what you "set".

Summarised, to me (and at first glance) it looks that the RME is too much of a Pro device (using ASIO and everything works).

Lat thing : A DAC which does not support Kernel Streaming does not exist in my book. So this could be a matter of installing the proper driver. Maybe you can ask on that forum.

With changing the 24 bit / 32 bit setting you may see some success suddenly more success (see screenshot below, the DAC Needs section).

WASAPI is available when you did not shut off the WASAPI Services. See second screenshot.

I hope you can get it done, but remember, it will always annoy you because the sampling rate won't change automatically.

Kind regards,
12  Ultimate Audio Playback / Orelino / Orelo MKII Loudspeakers / Re: Multi-channel input option on Orelo on: September 09, 2020, 04:37:26 am
Hi again Ramesh,

Yes, but ... I just woke up with knowing again how it is "constructed" ...
And it's applied for so long (like 15+ years), that I did not even realize any more that it is how it is;

The power amp, be that internal or be it yours externally, acts as a pre-amp for the bass section. This also solves the level difference between the mid-high and the bass section; once set = always set.
And for myself I could not explain that with my previous explanations.

Internal Mid-High amplifier(s) with fixed volume -> DSP -> Bass amplifier(s).
External amplifier with variable volume -> DSP -> Bass amplifier(s).

(bass is always levelled with mid-high, once set orderly (via the DSP volume))

Thus with Line Level input there's internally an Y split behind the one of the two amps servicing the mid-high and one branch goes to the mid-high and the other branch goes to the DSP (which is thus fed Speaker Level signal, but not the bass level which would be too much for it);

With Speaker Level input, the Y is right behind the input (but thus behind your external amplifier) and again one branch goes to mid-high and the other goes to the DSP.

With multi-channel input the same principle could be applied, now all externally. In that case, there too the balance between mid-high and bass would be preserved, once set orderly.
In this setup no internal filters are active whatsoever, so this now all has to be applied outboard, be that passive normal filters or be that DSP or a mix.

13  Ultimate Audio Playback / Orelino / Orelo MKII Loudspeakers / Re: Multi-channel input option on Orelo on: September 08, 2020, 04:44:05 pm

So my confusion is: what input is the DSP or bass amp getting.  It only has the speaker level input.

I suppose this "explanation" was not clear :

Don't ask me how the level of the bass amps is attenuated, but or it has to be inherently (this is definitely possible), or the attenuation has to be done with the DSP (input level).

Notice that "Speaker Level" is nothing else than a higher voltage level than Line Level. The Speaker Level is amplified Line Level and it can just be attenuated (brought back to Line Level). This happens internally (my mentioned "inherently") or it has to be done with the DSP Input Level (and attenuate that). If you don't recognize that you have been doing the latter, it will be the former.

14  Ultimate Audio Playback / Orelino / Orelo MKII Loudspeakers / Re: Multi-channel input option on Orelo on: September 07, 2020, 06:56:36 pm
Hi Ramesh,

I do think you understand, but possibly my first post about this was not made fully clear (about the "External Amp" input).

With External Amp :

- You'd feed Speaker Level signal from that amp to the Mid/High section;
- The Filter setup now will be different, but there surely still is a filter on the Mid and on the High plus an XOver obviously;
- The bottom part of the Mid is also filtered, to form the XOver towards the Bass units;
- The bass amps plus DSP remain active as they do with the (single) line level input.

Don't ask me how the level of the bass amps is attenuated, but or it has to be inherently (this is definitely possible), or the attenuation has to be done with the DSP (input level).

But you tell me ... contrary to me you used the External Amp, right ?
So if this is correct, what are your findings regarding this subject ?


Maybe I feel stupid not to be able to present a schematic, but this is because there are a million schematics in emails floating around, and the emails with Bert are 1000s on the Orelo alone (yes, this was all arranged for via email - believe it or not).
15  Ultimate Audio Playback / Orelino / Orelo MKII Loudspeakers / Re: Multi-channel input option on Orelo on: September 06, 2020, 01:09:19 pm
Hi Ramesh,

Yes. As far as I know from the design ...
(but I never really tried myself ...)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 1027
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.431 seconds with 12 queries.