Haha, yes looking forwards to seeing you 

Hi Peter,

This definaly kicked off for me because of your posts  .

At the time you started this thread, my X99 clock project was finished. It took close to 2 years and literally 100s++ of changes, the sound was really something very special but there was not much else I could think of to keep me busy on the x99 board so I was starting to look out for something new to try. Then you posted on the  Intel Scalable Processors and 601 PCH chipset. Our systems are very similar so I got straight away that you were really onto something. A look at the PCH 601 data sheet ( 3000 pages :-) ) really helped decide to do the build. Besides all of the very important for a music server archtecture features you mentioned in this thread, the 601 chipset clock system has changed from the x99. Its like someone in Intel thought "lets give those audio guys a helping hand"  . On the face of it on paper back then and now listening to the built PC I think you are right in that much of the X99 clock benifit can already be heard in the 601 based build...... billiant !

Regards the sound quality, IMHO the 6130 build is very step from the Stealth II (which is quite a suprise given the excelant sound quality of the Stealth II). My clock bought a lot more to the table on an x99 system and now the 601 / 6130 takes a big step forward from there.

I hope to hook up with an x99 with clock PC at my place next week to do some direct comparisons (unfortunatly I used parts from my x99 in the 6130 build so I cannot play them back to back right now). The focus is not so much on might the 6130 be such a big step forwards. It just is. But on comparing the effect the clock has as I think there may be a little goodness to be got with the 6130 system but I want to be sure before I risk wrecking some expensive components 

Regarding the 601 / 6130 server build, yes its certaily different to a desktop PC, even now I have some instability that I have to sort out. I know how well rounded and complete your stealth builds are and stand by my comment that the Stealth III is going to be good value given its content and the SQ performance.

Definatly enjoying the music just now 
KR,
Nick

Michael,

No I dont have a stealth III. But felt it useful to comment on 6130 sound quality.

Also having been through a build and knowing what bespoke componemts and work Peter puts into the Stealth II, (but not of course the Stealth III) I genuinly think that the physical package and most importantly the music quality make the Stealth III great value.

KR,
Nick.

Hi,

I dont want to distract from Peters Mach III thread but I can offer some supporting comments on the sound of a 6130 16/32 core system.

Sound quality is EXCEPTIONALLY good, its an absolutly outstanding device for music replay. My old PC which was an x99 14/28 core with some modifications to its clock and power supply arrangements,  which set a very very high bar for SQ. To have the 6130 play so well in comparision is a major supprise.

The 6130 was not a straight forward build, as Peter says above server boards are certainly a new environemt, and it is expensive. I absolutely agree with what Peter says about sound quality here. Having been through a build, IMHO the Stealth III looks like very good value to me.

Regards,

Nick.

Hi Juan,

I have to tell myself ithe wait ts like going back getting up to drop the needle on  a new track or changing an album on vinyl, its sure a wait.

Interesting that you hear a difference too. 
I hear a lot of more detail with warmer more natural voices in particular.

Best regards,

Nick.

Hi,

Network software driver settings make a big difference to sound quality. The context for trying the tweak that follows is an XX replay system that makes use of an ethernet network connection between a Music Server and Audio PC to pass music files and support remote desktop access to the Audio PC.   Sound will change I think with XX software playing in Attended Mode or Non Attended Mode despite the network being turned off in non-attended mode.

The tweak is to force the  ethernet connection speed between the two PC down from 1GB (which most systems will default to if left to auto negotiate ethernet speeds in control panel) to the lowest speed of 10Mb/s.

I set this up a few days ago with the thinking that the  Network Adaptor and its software drivers on the Audio PC generate masses of hardware interrupts (that influence sound) and the adaptors software driver will register different resources and possibly it and the adaptors hardware process requests at different speeds depending on the ethernet speed that is set up.

The tweak is quite simple to try.

On the Music Server PC in Control Panel > Device Manager > Network Adaptors double click the network adaptor that is used to connect to your Audio Server. In the Advanced tab go to the Speed and  Duplex property. It will probably be set to Auto Negotiate (in which case you are probably getting a 1Gb/s ethernet speed if both PC can support his). Change this to 10Mb/s Duplex (you can try 100Mb/s also) but 10MB is where the magic is here for sure.

(I am running a few other network related Advanced settings which may also add to this but I think the link speed alone will make a difference).

Sound quality is best summed up:

CLARITY and fine detail ! (in very natural and good way), Pace and PRESENCE improvments. I am really quite shocked by the difference here. And it influences sound in both XX Attended and Non-Attended modes although to differing degrees.

Be prepared to wait for your music to transfer from your Music Server to your Audio PC (the link in theory just got upto 100 times slower) so it takes longer for music to start but here is massively worth a few extra seconds wait 

It may be that others are already doing this and I missed it, but give this a try and let me know what you make of it.

Regards,
Nick.

One foot note, Bass may be ever so slightly softer or perhaps everything else go so much better, or maybe is not really changes cannot make up my mind yet.

Haha... 2.10 Bass is back 

Just a quick update on my ealier post on 2.09 vs 2.10 base.

I was sure I was hearing a large difference in 2.10 output and this was correct. However, 2.10 bass is fixed now and is sounding at least as good if not better the 2.09. I am REALLY pleased with the overall sound, now getting the supper sweet 2.10 mids and highs with epic dry powerfull bass the extends stongly down again in the low bass frequencies.

The fix to get 2.10 bass back was two things:

1 Bios settings - needed to set spread spectrum to "on" in bios (x99 mobo).
2 NOS1 - needed to tighten up board connections in my NOS1. This was my fault and shoul not apply to other people.

Overall now an sound is EPIC, low bass is back and now better than 2.09 

Thank you all for comments and suggestions above in the post.

Regards,

Nick.

Robert hi,

My comments are not born out of being used to an old sound and not likeing a leaner more damped reproduction of the new. I will try to give more background.

Regarding the bass driver excursion observation, in my system this is very relevant. The reason for this is that Orelo speaker bass is generated by open baffled horns. These require relativly large cone excursions needed to reproduce low bass frequencies. They Orelos have a flat respone down to 17hz iirc, to deliver this resonse the dsp which drives the bass has dbs of signal lift into the drives in the sub 40hz region in order to move the speaker cone sufficently to produce the flat resonse. For Orelos a drop in cone excursion to minimal levels at low frequency means there is a significant drop in output.

I think your PL Audios subs may be enclosure or possibly reflex loaded meaning that its excursion can be much smaller relative to an open baffel system so I would expect quite a difference in low frequency cone excursion behavior between our systems.

I have not really provided the full system context for my comments. To explain, I have spent almost two years developing and tuning pc, dac and speaker modifications which I have not posted about. These really elevate sound quality to a very high level (this is in the context of the already high starting point of my phasure / db design system). With 2.09 the bass performance is very realistic in energy levels whilst staying well defined, damped and delineated. I do not measure room response but I would say response is good down to the 17hz roll off of the speakers. This means that kick drums and electronic bass sounds for instance go right down whilst retaining realistic energy levels and quality in my listening room which is quite large.

The issue is that in the last half octave 2.10 is just not doing this. I can try software settings again and see if these pull the sound back, but right now its somthing of a no brainer 2.09 excels in low bass, 2.10 is better in most other areas but if scale and PRaT are needed by the music I still find myself going for 2.09. Just hope there is a way to get the bass back to where it was with using 2.10. More work to do......

Regards,

Nick.

Hi Peter,

I will look again at settings, I have been playing about for a while with them based on your signature settings before posting, mids and highs are great but not much luck so far with the low bass.

One quick test I use is to watch the Orelo bass cone excursions from the back of the drivers. Its easy to see lower frequency notes and watch the driver during  bass pitch slides. 2.09 produces much more visible excursion on sub bass notes. It is just the last 20 or 30 hz I think, its not missing altogether in 2.10 but excursions are much much smaller.

Definatly time to revisit software settings and possibly retune my pc elsewhere.

Kr,

Nick.

I just wanted to add a perspective to my earlier post which gets lost in some of the details.

2.10 is absolutly a masive step forwards in that the sound is sooo much more transparent. Getting rid of hash is very difficult and 2.10 sounds like a masive step in this regard.

I guess the high level point is that in my system low bass foundation and drive sounds light by comparison here. If i can tune to co bine the lows and slam of  2.09 with the goodness in mids and highs in 2.10 i will be a very happy camper indeed. :-)

Regards,

Nick.

I will give it a go, keen to do what ever possible to recover the extra bass depth, thanks.

Kr Nick.

Hi,

I have been holding back posting on 2.10 sq to have some time to try settings, understand what changed, and particually understand changes in the bass.

The stand out 2.10 changes for me are mids and top end, there seems to be a massive amount of digital colour removed from the sound throughout these ranges and there is much more sparkle and clarity to the sound.  Voices in particualr are much clearer, there has been a slight haze around voices for as long as I can remember which has now gone what is absolutly fantastic. Precusion has an ease and clarity with serious dynamic that adds to the sense of realistic presence. All super stuff but there a cost IMHO moving to 2.10 from 2.09.

First is bass. 2.10 is very well controlled and damped but I have had to increase my dsp bass gain by more than a 1db to get close to percived bass levels that 2.09 produces. 2.10 can sound powerfull in mid and upper bass but low bass is rolled off very much compared to 2.09. The sub bass floor response that 2.09 excels at here is just not there to the same degree. Using Orelos with there 17hz rolloff point this is quite apperent and although it is perhaps the last half octive it makes a big difference to the low bass foundation of music.

Second is PRaT. In 2.09, taken overall across the range, PRaT has an edge this is despite the unmistakable mid high improments that 2.10 brings. Here 2.09 is still delivering a more life like overall enery into the room and has toes tapping more. For complex music with crescendos and high energy where you are not concentrating so much on "strands" of the performance but more on the overall power and drive of the performance 2.09 delivers more spectical and scale.

Overall right now I cannot decipher which version is better, to the point that I have had to set up two  OS versions on my RAM OS disk, one with 2.09 the other with 2.10. I find myself listening to the 'event' woven by 2.09 more often than 2.10 despite the very much  is better in mids and highs, 2.09 provides the bass foundation and overall slam with 2.10 being a small step behind in these areas and its timing.

We will all hear different portrayals due to system components and setups so I understand if the above dose not resonate elsewhere. Although 2.10 is a massive step forwards in mids and highs, my perception here is that low bass and overall PRaT have stepped back somewhat.

Regards,
Nick

I had chance to listen with the settings your posted Peter.

Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
And just mentioning : Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
And thus OSD Text = Off. Wallpaper (front and back) On.

They have turned arround my opinion in my earlier post a couple of pages back.

I think there is defiinatly somthing good coming together with the high q1 values now that I have q3,4,5 =1, OSD text off and clock res 15ms also set. SQ is very coherent with very high detail levels and impact in highs (stength of cymbels for instance) is better. Purity of the highs could cut glass when music denands (in a good way).

Can I suggest another setting to try which is related to system overhead.

For a while I have been using windows network card interupt moderation settings to tune sound. There can be quite a SQ difference from this. I think it plays to the idea of lowering windows overheads.

Fron memory to set the n/w adaptor interupt moderation rate.

Control panel => device manager => network adaptors => double click the used network card => select advanced tab => in the settings list make sure interupt moderation is enabled => set interupt moderation  rate to the desired value from low to extream or adaptive (I gravitate to a setting of High or medium).

Reading around this the setting controls the hardware interupt frequency the network card generates. There are quite a number of additional settings in the advanced tab that can influance sq, but interupt moderation is interesting to try in combination with the new setting above.

Kind regards,
Nick

I had a listen using q1=30 q1x=40 and sfs around 1 today.

This is how it sounded compared to q1=7 , q1x=0 and sfs 1.8.

With the higher q settings.

Highs are smoother and less "etched" but i would say slighty smoothed or filtered. What makes me think this is that there is a small loss of detail.

Mids are tonally convincing but lack a small amount of dynamic impact. Guitars and electronic mid sounds can be very satisfying. Voices are smooth full and natural sounding but again I think the last gramms of detail whuch is not reproduced so well.

Lows are good, well damped and tunefull but extension is a little less and transient impact not quite as good.

Overall I do get a sense of a more balanced spectral resonse with the sense of an excited upper mid resonse being evened out very nicly  which is welcome, but as mentioned above this comes with small prices else where.


With the lower q settings

Highs are more detailed and contribute to the sound poping into the room, with better defined stage and slightly stronger dynamic. Comeing with the detail is a slight sense of hash and edge but I am being very picky on this point.

Upper mid vocals can, depending on the track, sound less tonally convincing with just a tiny amount of stridancy but do have very enjoyable presence. Lower voices are rich and very detailed, highlighting backing vocals and harmonys. Overall energy and dynamics are very enjoyable, coupled with the detail and seperation the music really has that in the room liveness.

Lows are similar in terms of damping but slightly more extended, have more weight and are definalty more tunefull. A clear favorite in terms of driving tracks forwards, giving a big grin factor to the music. Seperate amplifiers playing here too I think 




Overall I am supprised that settings so far "off the dial" as it were can work so well. Despite the tendancy to be ever so slightly etched the low q settings have it for me, they just gets that much closer to live, with more of the fun and musical event comming across.

Asside from the Q settings, 2.09 is proving to be a real revolation , thank you very much again Peter

Regards,

Nick.

Juan hi,

I rolled back to 2.08d today to compare with 2.09 as Peter mentioned he was not 100% sure if 2.08 had some of the sq benifits already. Moving back to 2.09 there is a very clear improvment , I heard  again the changes that Peter, Mani and I describe above.

Regards,
Nick.