So now the polite question to those who might even the slidest consider to obtain a Clairixa as well - to please announce themselves and with the length needed.

Haha; I wanted to add earlier that this is actually not the same as flying. I mean, you will surely notice *that*. So that is two-folded : one, you will clearly be totally deaf after a nice dive and two, because of that you will try as hard as you can to get your ears back (blow nose and such).

Thus although the solution may be the same (blow nose) the lead-in is not at all. But I am fairly sure that many may benefit from just attempting to close the nose and have a firm blow until something pops and there's way more LF suddenly. You can always try ... (when the music is on or otherwise you won't even notice that it worked).


Peter

Yeah, you need to start doing such things when you get to Peter's age 

Mani.

Are the two similarly priced?

Although I haven't heard many recently, I get the impression that modern delta-sigma DACs seem to be getting a lot better (with PCM material). Is the PSAudio one of the current front-runners in this regard?

Mani.

PS. Nah, not wanky at all.

Wanky ? nah, didn't see that. Only the title could be somewhat misleading. See mine. Haha.


Peter

I could have answered this similarly as I just did with the power connections, so before someone comes up with that :

No, not really. This is because I'd need to switch on the in the BIOS the Legacy USB2 plus the USB3 support and *that* I don't like, because I would be making two changes at the same time (different USB port and as less lean BIOS). And I think I am not the only one who does not like to change things once he is happy (which I still am after day 5 ).

Peter

Hi Anthony - Yes and it is a sad thing. I have seriously been thinking "now me too ?". But the point is that it seems necessary, so to speak. And honestly, when I think back of when I was 20-25 of age, I loaned interlinks of 200-250 euros and was always happy that they didn't work out (for me) and I could bring them back.

Since that age I have always been telling myself "cables later !" and I have been holding up that for now 30 years or so. And seriously ... I have been (so) proud that a 1$ USB cable worked out for the better for most, including for myself.

Maybe it shouldn't have happened that some perceivedly for the better were (virtually) spread, and that I myself tried a couple of them which were so much fo the worse. So this gave me the idea that might I try to make something for myself it just as well could turn out for the better. But of course this is since the "a" version of the NOS1 and I don't think such differences would have been there for the normal NOS1.

As it turns out, I may have been quite ignorant to never dive into these cable matters, that is, if I now look back and see that this can just be approached from dumn technical properties; extend what you're doing in DAC design to the outside of that.

Part of my changed thinking has been encouraged for with the "total system" concept, and how I in that other part of my life have always been saying that it would be rubbish to have all from the same brand (like DAC, preamp, power amp). Ok, maybe that is still so, but when you are (finally) making that a consistent whole, all now under (groundloop) control, things are really different. But how to think of that say 10 years ago, when nothing at hand for a base. So it is a (slow) process that today ends up in an "including cabling".

Still tough of course, because like with the Blaxius there is no real guarantee for those using different amps than the few owning that whole system, but that seems to have worked out as well. So apparently if someone pays attention to such things as cables, and now NOT from any audiophile ($$$$) view, things are quite easy ?

For the USB cable it still does not look easy to me at all because of the unknown influence. The 90 Ohm spec as such ? I don't even believe in that much (aha !). However, one can try to overspec so much that the impedance becomes relatively unimportant. Think like normal cable losses and how a longer length can be covered for by a thicker cable conductor. Thicker shielding. Better topology (differential). Make it so that you can't go wrong for the lengths as we use them. Take into account that at the computer side things may deal with it in a way that is out of our control anyway, but actually quite the same at the interface side of our D/A converters. Or put in the DAC (or amp) design perspective of : that for example a very carefully 50 ohm differential PCB design could be extended to "all the way through".
But who is doing that ?

Today I am, or at least I try. It is crazy as well, because normally required for ultra high speed designs only. And then thinking digital while half of what "we" do is analogue. This, while knowing that digital is to be only within the "threshold" specs of edge triggering, while looking at that "in analogue" *everything* will change the signal when approached like "digital only". So yes, analogue appears to be more difficult than digital. This is how Blaxius came forward but from there you can again think digital once you're at that anyway. And I tried that with Clairixa.
And so far so good; 2 more days to go.

Peter

My vote goes for a new PCIe USB card 

Juan

So about yesterday's findings ...

Yesterday I played far more random "normal stuff";
Looking in yesterday's playlist I see that I started out with Hotel California. Just curious because it never had been the best SQ wise, while it seems to have much potential. And is a great song of course.
Well, in my perception it was all over better. The first I noticed was the now refined cymbal (right speaker) and otherwise I thought it had improved a lot. Then I was told that it was a bit sharp, which indeed would be the case when you're in direct line of one of the horns. This is not what I told, but what I was told ... "oh, here (at the sweat spot) it indeed is quite good !". Ok.
Oh, I actually was finished with this post (below) and now I suddenly recall why I said "all over better" which actually is nothing for me to express, but it was this :
Maybe some are used to it from this track, but did you know this is all over *slamming* the toms (and flor tom) of the dum kit ? I did not. Dang-dang-dang all over with two sticks at the same time, if you ask me. Suddenly this really makes the track and I never noticed it before.

Then the real thing happened for me in Yeat of The Cat. Now *what* a what I call mid bass (instrument) is playing there ! Never heard it before, with the notice that I played this only 2 weeks ago (because all from Al Steward can be way lean in digital, and it is something to regularly check). Can't explain really about that guitar, but what a difference there now is suddenly between the guitars ...

From there I explicitly played Yours is No Disgrace (Yes). This is because a same guitar, but lower keyed, is playing there. Ok, this did not get more profound. But to my surprise something else happened : what a find sounding track (and album - The Yes Album) this now suddenly is. And then to think that this one is really in my Nice Stuff to regularly check it for improvement, mainly on the cymbals. Same thing : seams to have a lot potential. Well, for that reason it can now go out of the Nice Stuff, because it is there. Of course I will leave it in for it being Nice Stuff really in the first place.

I tried The Beat Hotel again (Allan Taylor) because it was that one which seemed nice at first, but actually completely flawed on the YFS for me. Well, all the strange sounds were there while it sounded beautiful to me at the same time. And the voice, once that jumps in, shivering, so forward and profound (and honestly sounding).

Because of the nice guitar in there (explicitly and urging for more "guitar") I played a few tracks of Ahmad Jamal - Digital Works. Well what to say. Can sound very processed and therefore interesting, but can also sound plain beautiful and not processed at all, like it did now. And now interesting because so beautiful.

A strange one : Animals (Pink Floyd). I played Sheep only, and this album is on my list for improvement (against all odds) for it's too dull sound. Something like not enough highs, but different like Machine Head). What I now noticed was not dullness at all but roughness (end explicitly not dull). I said "strange one" because it tells something which is similar to what I noticed before (first post) : those "holes" in the sound "required". So here seems to happen something like that too, but now at the way lower frequency; things get more separated and more square because of that, instead of a flat mush. Eh, dull.
But it sounds ugly because of that, and I guess this album will never make it really. N.b.: This is about the original, and the Remaster of this is better but I didn't try that.

Of course I played more, but the general consensus of the evening is again that without exception all was better, sometimes not by a small margin. But far more important : there hasn't been a single track that disturbed anywhere. On this matter a last one which won't tell you much : Shulman;

This is again "ambient" stuff, and a most difficult one to play throughout without thinking anywhere "oops" and "hmm" and "maybe not". One of the tracks I ever used to show how a Weiss completely chokes on it, where the end of it ends up in plain distortion which turns out to be just some frequency combination, and which distortion isn't even noticable because synths. I don't play this often, say once per 6 months, because really too difficult to enjoy it. But I felt now I should try it again.
Didn't even recognize it much. All so fluent and all so "meant to be" that I now start to wonder how super badly rendered much more will be without us realizing. Because that is the point : you will only know once you hear the better version.
How to explain it ...

Again I noticed the easyness of all what I played and how it allows for being background music, no matter the level is 90dBSPL or so. Really. So what is interesting about this is that when you are busy with something you are not distracted by the (loud) music, and when you want to listen explicitly all is there (I say after two days). To us this should tell that nothing is going on for strange "math" in our brains, hence nothing jumps out for the wrong and nothing must be corrected to we can adapt to it (and which would be tiring I'd say).

And so again I must conclude with the "rock-steadyness" I seem to perceive from it all. No false influence from anywhere.

3 days to go.
Peter