But it really is a tall ask expecting their 5W or so per channel to drive full range speakers (albeit high-efficiency horns) with passive crossovers and no powered LF drivers. I suspect this is simply too much for them.

Anthony, no, not done at all. Although I don't give it much chance, for a month or so I have the Creators Update on my network somewhere. But I have been working on the Lush since, and somehow I am short of time.
Anyway, this is not tested "in a minute" because I can only make it a RAM version to compare apples with apples.

If it works out (I assume it will - against all odds ) it will be an upgrade to the RAM OS Disk.

Peter

Anthony, man, what a great share this is.
And yes, good description of what the Intona does to the sound. But let's keep in mind, only for 14393.0 that works out so (to be "over"). 10586.0 is fine with it.

Personally I would always stick to such devices and cables. This is for the reason of things being able to drastically change for all the reasons you may run into in the future (which we can not predict).

Regards and super thanks,
Peter

I'm growing a real hatred for all things USB. It's like we're all being held hostage by its whims. And unfortunately, it has us by the balls...

And our knight in shining armour, instead of defeating it and putting it in its place, is courting it! Appeasing it. Complementing it. But its fickle nature remains lurking beneath the surface.

Any advice on what I should do?

Mani.

Yes please.  Will let you know the length.

My observation remains though that both XX and HQP sound very different at 0dB vs. any level of attenuation... and that this has nothing to do with clipping or the 'sweet spot' of the the DAC. And also that in XX, PE has a similar character to 0dB.

How would you describe the difference?

Mani.

Anthony, by now I think you saw it yourself (reading Mani's post later than you wrote yours) but this was already happening prior to the G3/B'ASS upgrade.

I also dare say that Mani has "visions" (don't want to call it issues) on this from what ? ... 6 years back ? or was it 8 years because even prior to the NOS1 ? I think so ...

Peter

Hi Anthony,

Hmm ... that makes me think twice. But I think that only for some sense of "logic" you may be right. This does not mean that technically you need to be right per se. So I think the other way around :
With exactly the same thought (there's lack of power in general), you thus feed the amps with full voltage (whatever that is for the moment) and thus for that situation it requires the most power. So of course you can think that a DAC with e.g. 2x the output voltage should be able to work too for any situation (because "an amp is an amp" ?) but it doesn't really work like that. So I think the other way around : we have some amps that suffice for 109dB sensitive speakers (at say 3 Ohms) and that thus siffices the same for 115dB sensitive speakers (at 3 Ohms) ? I don't think so. And thus : if the amp suffices "just" for the 115dB speakers it lacks a factor of two for power on the 109dB speakers.

So all what's required to let the amps clip is :
a. have underpowered amps;
b. feed them with a voltage which is just more than they can handle.

Ad b.
Make that a little less (digital attanuation or by other attenuation means) and they are fine.

Right.
And now I say that all is moot because I said that I have dreamt that I saw a text from Mani telling about "since this tube amp and speakers" but I don't think I dreamt and Mani rather pulled that text (because ... and I didn't look it up - Mani had the problem prior to that already).

I already said "not sure !" and it is far more easy to think that the NOS1a clips. But then "unnoticed" for me and it should be related to a frequency because I coincidentally checked it for exactly this phenomenon (clipping) and it does not (but with 3dB more IIRC it does). It does not at 1KHz.

While this would be some technical explanation from my side, I only present you this information because it is an understandable explanation (I hope). But what I really think and should say is that each NOS1 has its sweet spot for attenuation which is related to the PCM1704 chips which has the sweetspot and which is not equal at al for each chip. But as you can understand in itself, this is not any explanation to bring forward because nobody can deal with it (I wouldn't be able to either). From there, another explanation is more feasible and this is that the MSB (Most Significant Bit) from the chips (or one of them etc.) implies a "not the best" sound. So remember, when we attenuate digitally even the slightest, that bit is turned off and never comes up throughout and piece of music (no matter how loud). Or an even better explanation for those understanding the PCM1704 : that one half of the chip (forming the 24th bit (MSB)) is shut off and which is special (regarding to all of the other bits).

... And of course it is already known that about each person trying to digitally attenuate with a preamp (or analoge volume of other means) present, always comes up with this 6dB. I never tried it, but this may not be a coincidence.
So in the end it is nothing new ?

blablabla ...
Peter