XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
February 28, 2017, 06:54:12 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Dec. 31, 2012 : XXHighEnd + Phasure NOS1 DAC receive 6moons Blue Moon Award !
** "Lonely at the very top" **
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 on: February 27, 2017, 11:51:07 pm 
Started by RiCo - Last post by RiCo

Phisolator + NOS1a + B'ASS are inside same H shaped box. Not sure what the actual denomination would be according to Peter. Mentioned all of them due to the impact on SQ that each has. I have to say it is one mighty sound making machine!


 on: February 27, 2017, 10:32:12 pm 
Started by RiCo - Last post by JohanZ
Interesting profile you have ".....Phisolator ->NOS1a -> B'ASS......" Wink

Regards Johan

 on: February 27, 2017, 08:12:49 pm 
Started by RiCo - Last post by RiCo

I was able to get HQPlayer to (kid of) work on Win 10 at 705K (both in normal and minimized OS). Quite often the sound would become garbled and sometimes slower. This abnormal behavior was displayed as well when HQPlayer was running as a Roon end point. At this moment I give up. This exercise reminded me that to use Windows one has to be into S&M.

 on: February 26, 2017, 10:58:55 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by acg
When I did the PCIe ground isolation with the Silverstone Card, and because I was able to do it sequentially (i.e. a little bit at a time) what I noticed was that as the PCIe ground become "more" isolated that external RFI/EMI influenced the USB error rates more and more up to the point that turning on or off a flourescent light anywhere in the house would cause the USB connection to be totally severed and a restart required to get it back again.

What I "think" was happening is that the induced voltage in the PC from the EMI/RFI was enough to float the voltage difference across the PCIe connection enough so that connection was no longer possible...i.e. the potential across the signal wires became too much and because there was no mecchanism to keep them the same relative to each other that a longer current loop through the main power lines had to be forced which was not able to work in this situation.

I think it is the same sort of thing that happens when we isolate the PC via the Intona/Phisolator and ethernet cable...the boxes manage to "float" relative to each other and the connection becomes unviable.  Peter, one idea that I have had about going forward with this (assuming the actual problem/s is/are correctly identified) is to get the connection working properly with a completely disconnected PC.  If you can get things working well when there is no back-door (the PE-neutral route) by battery powering the PC (temporarily, not permanently) then by my thinking it should work once the backdoor is put back in the system and the PC is plugged into the mains.  Will a completely isolated PC even be able to reliably send USB data to a dac?  That is my question!

 on: February 26, 2017, 02:41:17 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by PeterSt
If we combine my last two posts a little, and now know that I also measure a.o. electro magnetic field (which is the least one under our control), then it surprised me a little how much even a loose (!!) connection emits electro magnetic (EM) field.
It actually does not even matter whether the cable is connected or not, it just radiates once it is connected at one end. This counts for your power cord, for the USB cable and for the Interlink (and maybe more, but I just want to say "for everything and all").

What I do not know is to what degree devices suffer from this. But anyway what seems to be important is that all you isolate may not isolate really at all because something wants to go through air anyway (a not connected cable is fully isolated of course).
But this also means that when we "isolate" something, we must do it at both ends. Or "around" the device we want to isolate. Now think why there is this Sw#3 *and* the PE switch at the Stealth PC. Hey, not that I could reason it out, but I sure made them at both ends because that is what it comes down to.

Now we need to have both switches engaged. Why ? well, this has to be about something going over PE (which is indeed just the same as the neutral, which is ... just your power supply signal), and this is this analogue backdoor.
My device in between those two switches (which is now the NOS1a/G3 up to its analogue outputs I'd say), is still isolated. And the more I do that, the more the influence - now just originating from the PC of its own - must go via the mains.

Theoretically this implies a "draw" on the outputs of the DAC, which impy a "reversed" impedance to the D/A section. Thus, something is hammering on that impedance from the outside now, and any impedance change might be able to change the D/A process itself. You could even call it jitter, because it may cause the D/A "gate" to open a bit sooner or later. Say that current leaks through in reversed direction. Now THAT kind of jitter would be new !

And so I think that I just found something important. The missing link. Something which shouldn't influence so largely because it should disappear in the massiveness of high voltage (like 200uV of distortion should not be able to influence devices which run at 115V/230V). But it should imply jitter via that same backdoor.

OK, if I see radiation of 0.5V/m spouting out of everything, why shouldn't that influence fragile voltage stuff like a D/A conversion ?
And I suppose some other way around : why wouldn't that radation be less when the capacity (so to speak) is fully utilized ? This is just wild guessing. But I have something like : if radation (EM) emerges because of something not being able to go anywhere (a loose-end cable), then there should be no radiation when all is 100% connected. But not only connected - also fully consumed (no losses).
This is a bit of the opposite of isolation, but alas.
Hips - oops


 on: February 26, 2017, 02:25:07 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by manisandher
So my other responses left aside, it should imply that whatever it is we incur with stuff like the SFS and probably much more, is going the analogue backdoor route (I wanted to say this  right away, but waited for your explanation and implied USB impeded noise instead - which of course is your topic).


Just reading your next post now...


 on: February 26, 2017, 02:22:43 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by manisandher
Thus wnen [sic] errors are about, generally this is about noise.

[Highlight mine]

OK, so when USB errors occur, they are generally about noise. No problem.

But USB noise is still there even when there are no USB errors, right? And this noise can still affect the sound of the DAC, no? I mean, it is possible to change SFS from 1 to 120 and get zero USB errors in both cases, and yet still hear a change in sound from the DAC's analogue output between the two SFS settings, correct? Or are you saying that this change in sound must be accompanied by different USB error rates, as this is the only mechanism that can be at play here?


 on: February 26, 2017, 02:18:42 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by PeterSt
The thing that puzzles me though, is how PE and signal ground are connected and why the Phisolator seems like a player in connecting the two.

Anthony, to start with the latter bquestion, this is not so at all. But it seems clear to me that when the former happens, there's too much of current on the Phisolator. And in an attempt to answer the former question :

I too need sitting back in figuring out how this happens. But say it is too complicated to follow all. Some intruduction though :

That black wire (connected when Sw#3 is down for the NOS1a and permanently connected for the normal NOS1) crosses a "surface" in the DAC case, say diagonally from the USB input to the other end (somehere under the main power supply). This is to guide away radiation and what it does is bring the USB shield to that other end.
OK ...

What I next found was that the Phisolator "just" requires this connection to be differently, additionally. I know I won't be able to explain it and it was all empirically found but where the normal USB input is connected to this black wire, the Phisolator's input goes *via* this same original input and ...
Needs is own connection to the case, but this time close by.

USB's shield is now connected two times to the DAC's case - one time right at the position of the input terminal (see photo below at the "i") and one time when it again enters the case via the normal input terminal (this goes via what I call a loop-back wire - see at the "u") but then via this input terminal shield across the DAC as always. Each can be connected and this connected and the permutation of 4, each give different results on the amount of errors - hence, this all has such a strong impact that the active part of the isolation fails, or just works fine.

While the above only explains about the internals of the NOS1a with Phisolator (SUB Isiolator) inside (and the "a" part being that other galvanic isolation further downstream), things probably get bananas when that black wire hence case connects to signal ground (which I would not like in the first place) but which is realized by my analyser but maybe is normal. Look :

My NOS1a/G3 what this is about, is not connected to PE, but of course the normal power cord is. It is only that where it enters the extension block, the PE is cut in that block.
These are copper strips and all I did with this block is cut that strip right in the middle of the 10 outlets it carries. Thus I now have 5 connected to PE and 5 are not. But think carefully, because that one half which is not connected to PE *is* connected to each other. Thus when I put the power cord from the NOS1a in there and the anayser in that same groupf of 5 (which I do), I have the cases of the two connected, well, assumed that the case of the analyser is connected to PE but which I did not check.
It would not be the first time that a device connects its dignal ground to PE and how knows the analyser requires it (it is a device to measure precisely, and I actually have not much knowledge about what's best for such a device). Anyway, if it connects its PE to dignal ground, then via its inputs the signal ground goes into the NOS1a and ... bingo. Now PE is connected to signal ground from the perspective of the NOS1a.

Anyone who uses a preamp or amp that connects its signal ground to PE *and* who does similar to what I do with my extension block or who just cut the PE connection from the NOS1a's case, ends up with the same situation and the Sw#3 should be up or otherwise this connection from signal ground to PE from the perspective of the NOS1a, is a fact.

In my own situation I measured that Sw#3 must be DOWN. If I don't do that, I might have USB errors. This is also the situation (since Phisolator) that I again connected the PC to PE, including the PE Switch on it set to "On" (connect to PE indeed). Do notice that I measure this with radiation meters, which I obtained after our conversation about them, many months ago by now. So it is quite easy to see, but it is not said that more radiation imply more errors. It could be that the radiation shows that "noise" is guided away through air, God knows what the receptor it.

Dizzy ?

Then let me again add that with this Terradak situation, both NOS1a/G3 as well as PC/Terradak must be in mains earth or otherwise really nothing works (1000s of errors per second) and that this time Sw#3 must UP or again otherwise totally nothing works. But it doesn't work well anyway, because still too many errors (like 3000 in 10 minutes).
And oh, notice that the determinatin of this single little chapter of working out these permutations, cost one afternoon. And then you end up with nothing (no satisfactory result).

Now on to the Silverstone (OK, almost) ...

 on: February 26, 2017, 02:18:18 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by PeterSt
In my earlier post, I referred to chain 1 as 'digital' and chain 2 as 'analogue'. What I found was that chain 1 seemed immune to SFS changes in XX. Chain 2 reacted to SFS changes in XX. And I was just trying to understand why this might be the case.

Hi Mani - Yes, I expected something like that.
So my other responses left aside, it should imply that whatever it is we incur with stuff like the SFS and probably much more, is going the analogue backdoor route (I wanted to say this  right away, but waited for your explanation and implied USB impeded noise instead - which of course is your topic).

Possibly it is even a combination occurring. Like in : what can not go via USB any more, *will* go elsewhere.
Also see 2nd new post coming up ...

 on: February 26, 2017, 02:11:06 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by manisandher
As often, I can't guess easily what - in this case - your "analogue" means and this is because you seem to take things for granted which wouldn't come to my mind (with as result that I can't know what you are doing).

Yeah sorry, my earlier post was a bit cryptic. What I actually did was set up two different chains:

1. Mach II -> USB-to-spdif -> Tascam spdif input
2. Mach II -> USB-to-spdif -> DAC spdif input -> DAC analogue output -> ADC analogue input -> ADC spdif output -> Tascam spdif input

In my earlier post, I referred to chain 1 as 'digital' and chain 2 as 'analogue'. What I found was that chain 1 seemed immune to SFS changes in XX. Chain 2 reacted to SFS changes in XX. And I was just trying to understand why this might be the case.

Does this now make sense?


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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 0.289 seconds with 15 queries.