Hi Peter, I´m using W7 but I´ve made the changes you have done for W8 and my SQ improved notably. I had two hdd inside with music, now none of these hdd are inside the computer and are connected to an USB 3.0 hub which is at the same time connected to a mb USB 3.0 port, previously these hdd were connected to SATA III. The USB 3.0 hub is independently powered so the USB 3.0 cable don´t take the power from the computer. The other change I´ve done, as you suggested, is to put the Playback drive inside the computer and connected to SATA III. Finally the Filter card remains where it was filtering the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCIe card. Previously I had the Playback drive connected directly to the USB 3.0 TeckNet card where also was (and still is) connected the NOS1.
I don´t know about W8 but in W7 this changes made the best sound ever so far in my system, I´m now in the third day with this configuration and the SQ remains stable and sounding beautifully. The sound is clear, the soundstage firm and the bass tuneful, the final notes seem to never reach the end, they remain sounding lower and lower and lower until I can clearly hear where the sound stops. I don´t want to touch anything now, I wouldn´t like to touch it I mean, but...I suppose that the evolution will continue.

Best regards,
Juan

Funny that I was discussing the very same with Nick recently and it appears that there are very few balanced / bridged GC's out there. Now that I have heard the difference I would only consider balanced. But of course the problem is that there are not so many source components that offer decent quality balanced outputs. So the only option is to install transformers and then of course you have to start spending a lot of money to get good quality - and even then you are putting something extra in the signal path. From where I am sitting (which is in front of my speakers listening to the Duke in mono ha ha) NOS1 with balanced output into balanced bi amped GC is very special indeed.

On the offset both Nick and I were lucky to be able to get such good offset results. But of course balanced configuration should always work out good because the net offset at the speaker terminals is the difference between the offsets of the two individual amps whereas in a normal config you are stuck with whatever is on the output of that amp.

Happy days - my amp is starting to relax a little now and losing some of the "edge" noted when first fired up.

It would be good to get someone else on board - is anyone out there thinking of balanced GC? if so let us know.

Cheers

Paul

Hey Paul, remember this one ? http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=642.msg14360#msg14360 (bottom picture in that post)
I counted 75 pieces of cut wire there, and this was from the final assembly of one NOS1.

But your end product looks nicely tidey and neat !
Good result on the DC Offset as well (eh, how couldn't you hehe)


So, N&P Productions ... is it actually common these days to see GainClones in a balanced setup ?

At last - another early morning start and the amp is finished. I totally underestimated the work - this was a big project eight amplifiers in one box is a lot of wiring and when you try to make the wiring neat the time increases a lot. A check of the offsets showed just +3mv and -4mv to the LF drivers. So how does it sound? well no surprise just like Nick's when he brought it here. The main difference is the sheer effortless presentation of the music, the sound is bigger stretching beyond the speakers bass extremely well controlled all clearly delineated. The difference with a balanced setup is not subtle at all. The only downside at the moment is that the sound has a slight rough edge but the amp has just been switched on and so needs some running in. Also the interconnects I made use transformer wire and I will be rebuilding them with fine silver wire which is what sounded best when Nick came here. My old setup used the fine silver interconnect and it makes a significant improvement to my system.

A big thanks to Nick for the inspiration to build this amp - the SQ is really top notch. Ros and I will shortly be going to visit Nick and I shall be taking the amp with me to compare with Nick's. That may sound odd but we have found it really beneficial to compare our amps it is the only way to iron out any small problems that we would not otherwise find. We will post more after that visit.

If you are thinking about building a balanced bi amped amp do not hesitate do it you will not regret it (except the amount of work perhaps).

If anyone wants to know more information do not hesitate to post - Nick and I have been through the "pain" and we would be happy to share our experiences if it helps.

Paul

PS - Oh just one thing - when running at high volume (-21db with my 98db sensitivity speakers) and with a highish ambient temperature the heat sinks on my amp get very hot ~ 45deg C so I will have to look at improving that. Nick does not have a problem with his 115db speakers. I am using the whole case of my amp as a heat sink. Each amp is now seeing 4ohms output Z so significantly more current being delivered to the speakers.

PPS - Also I started off with earthing arrangement as I had previously i.e. with L and R channel grounds not connected to each other and not connected to PE - the result was that there was some "mains hum" through the left speaker and less through the right speaker. I then connected L and R channel grounds to PE - the result? total silence no noise at all through either L or R speakers. So the grounding requirements for balanced amp is different - not totally surprising but the only way to find out is to experiment.

Watch this space for more info ..............

Nick,

Thank you for your helpful thoughts.
And hey, maybe we 're at the beginning of something new to learn, now knowing how a PC can be influenced for SQ largely and without much hassle (none actually, if only it could be under our control more - ... as I think).

I don't think this can be about "direct jitter" because no jitter is in order at this stage (in the PC). So it can only result as current spikes towards the DAC, in there finally influencing. Same with the Adnaco btw.

But to be honest, I cannot understand how the influence can be that large, starting off with the enormous difference Windows 8 implies (differences from all directions in the mean time). So maybe there is more, but then someone has to find out what it is first. I can't do it at this time ...

Thanks !
Peter

Before I forget it myself ...

Day before yesterday (day 4) all went back more towards the first two days. But, pleasantly enough, not all the way. So, fairly refined highs with enough mid in them. I psychologically forced myself not to like it too much, afraid of the (expected) due change later.
And no, I did not mangle with the card yet.

I was not 100% satisfied because I seemed to notice less explicit interest in the music I played. Not sure it was me or whether it was the general consensus about Windows 8 (remember, I am trying this on Windows 8 only). Fact is that the phenomenon "mechanical sound" slipped through my mind a dozen times during the session.

Then yesterday;

After an initial start with an album which screamed from the speakers in typically W8 fashion (way too bright) and which I let last for into the 2nd track only, I ended up in a HDCD collection. And actually by coincidence the real take off of the day was a HDCD left over of the day before and I could clearly recognize the sound;

Maybe not really blanketed (again like the first days), but a sound of which at least I like to tear out more freshness from the speakers. Well, almost and just not.
The both albums I played were from Deep Purple, Who do we thing we are, and Machine Head after that. The former I find famous for its special emphasized highs (always doubting how processed they are) and the latter just because I wanted to go back in time.

Both sounded almost too normal to me and at least equal for quality, which I don't recognize from earlier playings of them. The clear point : they wouldn't go wrong. LP like. Far more interesting though is that I was playing at -15dB/-12dB levels while normally this would be -21dB or so for these albums, and still I didn't perceive it as loud at all. I measured, and was totally surprised I was playing at 80dBSPL only. This should be well over 90dBSPL at the set levels. ?

Fact is also that yesterday now a one dozen times it slipped through my mind that this was very close to W7, up to "what to go to W8 for ?". Still not, because this sounded sheer analog and people hunting for that ... why not.

One thing is most profound to me : All the problems I always and ever had with W8 being too dynamical in the sense of the difference between the softest and loudest passages being to large (and therefore never being able to set the correct volume) are out of the way, no matter in what fashion the card influences the sound.
A general thing I notice also (but it is in the same realm I think) is that W8 needs a louder playback to draw the sound out of the speaker plane (not have it too laid back). So this remains. The better stereo image from W8 also remains, but that too is in this same realm (as I think).

Tonight, for a change, I will try to play without the card and see what comes from that and how long I can last.

Peter

I wonder if such proximity with this device could generate a ground loop that would trigger sleep ?

Come on Alain, I am very interested in your opinion! 

Juan

Audiophile headrest I like that !

Alain

Well, I bought it today and the sound seems to be too in front and a little harsh but of course it needs some burning time so I´ll report again in about 100/200 hours haha!

Juan