Hi all,
Yesterday I finally went back to the Mach II and could compare it with the Mach III - I am by now very well acquainted with.
Actually one term suffices : Mach II is a rough machine.
In comparison the Mach II exhibits rough sound and nothing of the finesse the Mach III happily shows. Speed ? there is no speed. Interest in the music playing ? not existent. It just
is not interesting. OK, if you like a babbling crook and like to doze off during listening, don't get yourself the Mach III. But otherwise ? ...
All right. It is more interesting than what I just said because there's also an intriguing part. Maybe read
this first.
The largest part of the discussion we had last night is why Ciska has more difficulty with the sound of the Mach III. Well, the conclusion is, it's a brain thing and perhaps the not being interested really in the "super speed" the Mach III exhibits. So yesterday we had one example of a known album - Yello's Toy, and it's plain flat in comparison. Mind you, flat in the sense of flat "tones" without variation in them. Say as you know it from Yello because you wouldn't know otherwise. But now come over here and have a listen ...
The difference is for example in the voice. Know Mark Knopfler ? good, then you know nothing much. But well, you are entitled to know that Dieter Meier (Yello) surpasses Mark Knopfler on the deep and crackling voice (imagine the combination) by a mile or two. Inordinate (I could call it "crazy" once again). But this is just a voice and while you out there are used to Mark Knopfler and don't care about Dieter Meier being worse on it, you surely would care if Mark Knopfler started to sound as Chris Isaak. Right ?
So now you know how the Mach III sounds. No wait, what it can do.
Only two days ago I was fighting with the Crack Detection in XXHighEnd because one album kept on tripping on it (in each of its 4 tracks at some point). Might you be interested : 4T Thieves - The Digital Lagoon.
So what's up with this one ? well, according to the trip-setting of Crack Detect, more than 50 (100%) subsequent level (voltage) changes from close to the max of minus and the max of plus. Thus imagine your sound level in the room, and that about the loudest sound exhibits from deep silence to the maximum and that more than 50 times in a row at a sampling speed of 705600 time per second and this thus happening within 1 / 705600 x 50 = 0.00007 second. Thus, within this 0.00007 second the volume changes from min to max 50 times and ... you will be able to perceive it. Or at least it does something to the sound which is audible (to a trained ear ?) and a kind of "obviously" it was made like that (it is just in the music).
Btw, combine the title of the album with this ("The Digital Lagoon").
Anyway, when I was working on the weakening of the Crack Detect Tripping (which was set to 16 of these subsequent samples and is now at 100 so this album can be played), I really was focusing on what I could hear of it, knowing that it is in there. I envisioned (that I heard) this blasting fast on/off sound (generally by me referred to as crackle but better to call it sizzle at this frequency).
And that's how Yello is completely flat or maybe dead via the Stealth II in comparison. Try to envision the more complex sounds of a synthesizer (most modern synths can't even produce pure sines) and how the individual build up of such a sound now is audible. All crackles - all sizzles. All rattles when it is more about the lower frequencies. There's a tonne of more interest because of this in
everything.
But now Ciska ...
What we tried to figure out yesterday is whether it could be possible that one (or at least she) can't cope with this;
Let's say that all what's happening also has to be processed by the brain. Let's say that Mark Knopfler could come across as tiring somewhat, so what if this exhibit of a voise gets even worse ? Oh, I like it the best, but maybe if you like to doze off you can't because of this. Or, maybe if you want to read a book at the same time, you can't. Too much processing required.
Also interesting is that at least for me it is some other way around. I think I said in this topic somewhere that never mind all what's going on, it does not happen in a way that it distracts. The contrary, it is all more natural and therefore requires less macro attention. Otoh at the micro level all happens and if it gets constipated there the whole thing blows ?
High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 15
What was and remains interesting is how it could happen that with the "dumb" idea of making a power supply (the one for the Stealth III) super fast, the whole audio representation indeed becomes that fast. I mean, it actually can not be so that something of the audio itself is processed faster, like we can say this of the mains vs battery (a battery not being fast at all) as a supply to the power amp. Nothing of that order plays a role here. However, and as I told earlier in the topic, I created a super stable supply (as my measure of "speed" - it responds instantly) and now it looks like that this does a few things in the realm of "control" of the clock lines; I forgot the subject myself by now, but a MotherBoard and the fast CPU's of these days, anticipate skewing of the clock lines and take measure on it, while a super stable PSU (including the draw on it !) may incur for those measures not being tripped. And next is : less noise. And from noise by now we sufficiently know what its implications can be, especially in the digital domain(s).
In the next days I will try to focus on how Ciska reacts to the level (volume) and how loud I actually play. So, it is also good to acknowledge that I indeed play way louder with the Stealth III just because the average SPL is lower. How does this work ? well, actually you can hear it by means of the spades of air now being present. Air = literally no sound. It is the gaps between two "cycles" so to speak. No smear - nothing. Now if these "cycles" connect, the general level becomes higher and the SPL (which is a representation of "average") is thus higher. However, the spikes themselves (the maxing of the "cycles") is way louder. This too is audible as this is the sparkle and such and how the sound crackles through the room in s(c/q)uary format. So what's louder ? one canon shot in your room, of 1000 gun shots which add up to the same average SPL ? I know ... it's the gun shots.
So I could be playing too loud.
Blablabla ?
Peter
). At first I used the Mach II "as is" and instead of not liking the sound I thought a. to be lucky to have sound at all (with the III out of order) and b. I was gong to try the direct input (without Phisolator) so I didn't care much.
) so it was clear that I was doing "something" while it also was clear that I was using the II now because we both together had been working on the issue of the III.
