Hi there John,



Let me start with this latter one and let me answer Yes.
Now what ...

All what audio is about, where it concerns playback by computer means, is eliminating the influence from current draw (which is spiky). Well, this counts for CD players just the same, but we hardly can influence those by software, nor by hardware unless we rebuild them our own (this is not a regular business, I'd say ).

When it is about PC's we can well say that the software works together with the hadware. Notice, however, that this is not seen by most or many and that it requires to "be" in this community for a longer time to just know and accept. Thus, I realize this is not you, John. Not yet. 

The software can make act the hardware as lean as possible.
The leaner the hardware the better the sound. This is related to noise, but the subject is too large to explain. In the end though, via the most various paths, it comes down to less influence on jitter, or IOW less jitter. And if not that, then something we don't quite grasp yet, but the more lean always helps.

So why the Yes, more above ?
Because the overhead of processing is so huge that a "lousy laptop" is overwhelmed by it.
Side note : a laptop, or anything with a too "small" processor (like it being not hefty) must work too hard like an old Trabant trying to do 100 Km/h. It can do it, but with a lot of noise and it won't be there fast (audio is all about speed as in "transients").

But when "we" stream from Tidal, we don't really stream;
XXHighEnd is a memory player all the way, meaning that streaming from Tidal can be regarded as "download to memory in full first and play from there".

With now your first question (quote) above answers, this puts context to the second, and suddenly the answer to that becomes a full stop No.

When we are out of the noisy environment, we can build ourselves a post powerful PC with the most continuous current draw instead of (SMPS) super spiky draw, let the software help doing that, and play all nicely and quietly "locally". No internet connection at that time, and only minimalist LAN connection to control the player in the audio PC, which does not containg anything else than a processor. Not even an SSD or other storage means. Nothing.
No current draw from anything which is not there and no OS (Operating System) attention to anything which is not there.

And tomorrow again better than today because we keep on "inventing". Most often not me, hence you guys out there with good ideas. I will try them though and I will make a product of it you can buy and utilize (literally).

I hope this was something of an understandable answer !
Kind regards,
Peter

PS: And a warm welcome here !

Hi Mani,


I made a spreadsheet, anticipating the question of 10 meters (why did I do that eh ?). 8 meters is also in the spreadsheet (coincidentally). It tells me that I should tell you to have about 1563 euros and 27 euro cent in your pockets.
This is for a pair.

Might you really go for that, then I will aim a video camera on someone here, because it might be the last we see from that person. IOW, I then must really take some breath before telling such bad news.
Bad ass blax news ?
This is about 20 hours in a row caterpillering sleeves around cables and sleeves. The person doing this will be useless for the remainder of life. The aging is not in the spreadsheet yet because it takes real life experience first.

Peter (due zombie hunter)

Hi All,

I suppose a few of you already caught the news about Blaxius^2 but I held back a bit because our new born had to burn its *ss in a little first. Additionally my hearing was not the best the past days, so let's say that I couldn't believe what I was hearing in the first place.



As we may recall, the Blaxius was a community effort for a BNC Interlink in general, and what we at Phasure made of it, was an interlink with "blax" sound. Say that the emphasis was meant to go to the bass. This worked well but the Blaxius was so much more. It appeared to be a superb interlink, valued by many (owning $$$$ interlinks in the first place) as 10 fold its purchase price (at 250 euros) easily.

Skipping a few general steps of improvement, recently Lush^2 came about. Lush^2, a USB Audio Cable which emerged from the renowned original Lush and which ^2 version theoretically could create the best Audio USB cable ever just by means of configuration, appeared to be an audio bomb. So much so, that people wondered whether the Blaxius could not be ^2d too.
Initially I said No ...

Maybe a week later, and again someone asking for the possibility, it came to me that the Blaxius, when ^2d, would be a totally different application, electrically, than the Lush^2. And envision, people were actually asking for a digital Interlink - not much different from the Lush(^2). And I wouldn't even be able to test it, would I make one on request. Not really my style ...
But, isn't Blaxius used as analogue Interlink by most (like myself) ? of course it is. So why wouldn't I be able to test it then ?


Electrically different

The Lush^2 allows for configuration of its three different shields (screens). For a USB cable, this is about shields as such only. It is quite harmless, though important. It is harmless because no real current is flowing over any of the shields. It is important because of the shielding configuration making all the difference in the world to the sound.
Okay ...

A cable like the Blaxius, be it used as analogue Interlink or as a digital Interlink (like for S/PDIF or AES/EBU or whatever protocol, especially leaning on 75 Ohm impedance), uses its shield as the ground return. So, it is the gnd wire of the Hot/gnd part. Or plus/gnd if you want.
Over this gnd most certainly flows current ...

The minute I realized this was so ans *the* difference with the USB application, I was sold on it. A cable like the Blaxius should be so so much more be influencable with the current flowing over the shields, than a USB cable where no current flows over the shields at all.
I said WOW to myself already.


Using the same nomenclature as for the Lush^2, look at this configuration :

A:B-W & Y-R, B: B-W & Y-R
Here the current flows over the inner shield, while two additional "JSSG-360" shields form an additional double shield with dielectric, the latter pair doing similar to the signal as how it would to the Lush^2. Well, sort of, because right under it, current flows and it is not even "balanced" (like the Data+ and Data- van USB is).
Must be very very different for the work out ...
And mind you : the work out is very directly when used as analogue interlink, because it is right this signal which goes to the (pre-)amplifier. Compare with a digital signal, which theoretically only needs to comply to an eye opening of the eye diagram (but listen to the Lush^2 to know what already that does to the sound).

A:B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R
So ... now we have the middle shield carrying the current, under that a shield (W) which is just shield, but shielding as such from the main conductor (completely inside) where the current flows in the opposite direction. On top of that we have another (outer) shield and it connects to this "bottom" shield.
Can we still follow ?

I hope so because these were two configurations out of 1000s again and we can reason possibly even better what electrically might happen than with the USB application.
It's almost dangerous. Electrifying ...

A:B-W & Y-R, B: B-Y & W-R
This wouldn't be allowed. The Black wire, connected to the connector, now does not connect via any of the shields to the other connector.


Electrifying ? (Analogue Interconnect)

Yes. Depending on the type of music, the sound can be described like that.
You thought you knew detail ? hahaha

As is quite usual lately, the detail does not emerge in the highs but interestingly enough in the mid and even lower. You can say that a more square sound is outlined by high frequency support (so highs after all) which makes the square sound less rounded.
At the same time (sit tight) all the lower frequence transients are supported by way more umpf.
Lower frequency transients ?

Both descriptions in the paragraph above are actually the same. It is how a more transient low frequency sound is not overwhelmed by the low frequency itself. Next, the now more square sound has support from below the belt, so to speak. The whole soundscape changes.

The first night with the Blaxius^2 I started a song and right away heard that it was so way different that well before (say 1 minute) before a too much known melody started I asked in the room : "and, do you think you recognize this" ? The answer was No. Definitely not. The whole minute long. Then this real molody started and a "WHAT ?!?" followed.
So yes, this track is played maybe once per 2 or 3 weeks, for many years in a row. And it manages to be unrecognizable.

This happens in this fashion with more tracks and because they are so familiar I try to see what actually lacks or is added that they become so unrecognizable. I hear a melody more in the background instead of it being profound and/but I do not see how this is harmful. It is still there, but something else is more in balance with it now. I wouldn't want it differently, actually being able to envision both the situations (say from last week and from today).

Elsewhere (other forum) I wrote about a "beating" I now recognize in the lower frequencies (think "warble" to not make oit too complcated for now) and this first minute observation (last Saturday) remained. It has become the character somehow - things which may be able to "vibrato" sure do now. I hear troats doding this beautifully now, while previously they were "straight". It is in everything.
And you now what ?

It is exactly that which make the music musically sounding. It sings all over.

And this is with my third configuration attempt only.


Lushifying ? (Digital Interconnect)

I myself don't have the experience with the Blaxius^2 as Digital Interconnect, but a first quick report from a customer tells that like the Lush^2 the Blaxius^2 implies a less digital hence lush sound (this is from an M-Scaler application which requires 2x Blaxius^2).


Availability

Just now.
The Blaxius^2 can be ordered in the Webshop.

Please mind the waiting time mentioned at the bottom of the page in the Webhop.

Peter

Hi Arvind,

I use a 180GB SSD. The Galleries of more than 50,000 albums are on it (I think 50GB free). So ...

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Stanley,

I assume you have a Music Server PC. Next to that you have an Audio PC. Right ?
Then in the Music Server PC assemble an SSD and the most important is its read speed (but 500MB/s is sufficient). Just a 3.5" thingy. On that put the Galleries.

If you give that the e.g. Z: drive letter on the Music Server PC and you do the same on the Audio PC (which uses that volume as a share), then you have all nice and neat and it will be 10 times faster than an internal HDD used on the Music Server PC and from the Music Server PC. IOW, all has been set up such that this is blazingly fast over the network (and the Music Server PC itself accesses it even faster).

Clear a little ?

Best regards,
Peter

Somwhere in here, I'd say : Crack Detect issues using normal Ram OS.

Stanley, yes. Only 10 days or so ago someone else came up with similar and I/we determined it was the too low Balanced Load setting. At least that is what I recall of it.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Stanley,

Seeing ghosts eh ? haha
Would the below be the one, you think ? (obtained from Tidal)

So with an other USB cable this does not happen, everything else the same ?

In order to test it, can I just play that Track 03, or must the track(s) prior to that be played as well ?

See you in the mad house !
Peter

Dear Arvind,

Good question ... as there isn't a video card in there. It is integrated on the MoBo.
Just don't connect the monitor to it ...

Kind regards,
Peter

Arvind, thank you very much for sharing.
Apologies for a late response. I only found this today !

Kind regards and happy to hear that all worked out.
Peter


PS:
I think that at some stage I will merge this topic with the general one about the Mach III.

Tore,

That can happen when the MQA album is not MQA for all its tracks. And this really happens relatively often. And with a mixed playlist of course.
If that is so, you should be able to see it on the Wallpaper Coverart (the bytes/s number in the top (middle).

Best regards,
Peter

So Tore, that is the same as Hires, technically.
That "notch" you hear is the switching to the 48 based (like 96, 192) sampling rate. It is "normal". Notice that it depends a little per XXHighEnd version because I always try to solve it.
I have it - everybody has it. But notice that it only appears when you play 48 based material. It is about the switching off of the one oscillator while the other comes on. In the end this started with the NOS1a.

Kind regards,
Peter

Tore, do you play Hires material ?

Regards,
Peter

Hi Remesh,

Even if I read it a 100 times, I can't follow. Can you try in Dutch ?


I think it doesn't even matter, because Galleries are there a. to store one album from more angles and b. to always find back the album or artist from whatever angle, if you'd only know about the Search facility. Example (see first screenshot below); What's all in there ?

First off, see the Search Term at the bottom. This starts with a back slash (\) so I'm assured that this is an entry which starts with that Artist Name (it may make a difference when the Artist Name is in the middle).

At the bottom you see the C:\Galleries\ (which is not my OS disk, plus it is a fast SSD, especially there to be fast for the Gallery lookups).
Crucial is that all the Galleries I make, I make under one root : \Galleries\. Now all I have can be found under there, assumed that each and every album is put into at least one Gallery.

Then, you see in the first album a "Peter's Latest" entry. This is from a real PF album, "Watch the world up The Wall". But, we can already see "an" angle - my latest (at some moment in time). Similarly I now use a "Listen" Gallery. In there I put albums I run into by accident, and which I want to listen to sooner or later. When done, I remove it from there. And, might I really use the Peter's Latest (for the latest obtainments) then I'd remove it from there when I listened to it a first time.

Next you will notice that most are from the band members - not PF itself. But, I put them in a "Pink Floyd" Gallery so I have a complete collection of what all the members ever created (if I possess it of course).

Now for the crux, look at the second screenshot.
Look again what I entered in the Search Field with for this screenshot my emphasis to the "&amused" which selects Roger Waters and Amused (to Death). But it is not rally about that. You now see *and* my obtaining from the different angles in as well

\Rock\
\Rock-Sortout\
\Rock\Pink Floyd\

... which is about your Jazz 100. Btw also notice the 3 white WAV vs the two brown FLAC. But this is actually unrelated.
So ... what you now see additionally is the obtainment in \Nice Stuff\ as well as \Demo\, which both are derivatives from the version in (the WAV) \Rock\.

Remember, this is always looking in the main \Galleries\ Gallery. Never the original source. However, searching in a main (root etc.) folder in there would work just the same, but obviously from one at the time angle only, and not as fast (because it is obtained from the original source disk (which contains all the real data and is more slow)).

At the bottom a two screenshot bonus which is similar to your Jazz 100. The first shows a collection of the MP3 top 1000 and in the last screenshot for fun I tried whether there's a Pink Floyd in there. There is one.

Regards,
Peter