XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
April 23, 2019, 08:16:40 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
 on: March 12, 2019, 10:11:24 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by briefremarks
Tried Q xQ1 at 30 x15.  Very nice SQ.  This combination along with the new Lush^2 settings is very, very good.

 on: March 12, 2019, 07:38:09 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by Robert
Actually does sound better in every way.

 on: March 12, 2019, 02:38:59 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by Robert
Hi Nick, I will try what you suggest but is your signature up to date especially OS version and Xx version?


 on: March 10, 2019, 11:17:08 pm 
Started by numlog - Last post by numlog
Ok I understand, the server PC you describe sounds like NAS with XXHE on the audio PC,
usually (or sometimes) the audio PC is only a DAC interface and network interface to server... that isnt preferred here?

I do use single PC, using a server seems like the way forward but improving things on single PC is still possible, sometimes in undiscovered ways, it can be interesting.

Using the RAM disk for playback since was an improvement only with a strange difference. Previously the best sound was achieved with XXHE installed to storage HDD, assumed to be benefit of local FLAC decompression.
Now with RAM disk for playback, XXHE installed on the OS drive/SSD is now better but only with the HDD still used as storage.

you also mention this in ramdisk thread I notice, the install location matters, even though software runs from RAM (I guess at this point it shouldnt be a surprise)

 on: March 10, 2019, 04:13:02 pm 
Started by Robert - Last post by Nick

I have been playing with Peters new settings:

Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5
SFS = 0.69
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
Core Appointment = 3-5
Nervous Rate = 10
Wallpaper On, no OSD feautures

Sound is pretty superb, but felt voices were lacking just a little prominence and dynamic, as a result emotion was not quite as strong as it can be.

Changing q1 to 10 and xq1 to 15 has really bought back the emotion and presence. Everything else remains very enjoyable. Mybe bass pitch resolution is a shade more smeared but overall these setting are nice. Might be worth a try.


Peter hi,

I am back to this point about  q1 and q1x again,  where sound changes for different values of
q1 and q1x values which produce the same mathematical product.

I'v been playing using q1 30 and q1x 10.
Changing to q1 15 and q1x 20, "definitely" changes sound. The presentation is much clearer and noticeably more dynamic, emotional and musical with the latter setting. Since I last posted above on this, the resolution of my PC has majorly improved, and its now very easy to hear the difference between the setting. The change in sound is repeatable when switching between the settings, q1 15 and q1x 20 just sound so much more musical.

It might be worth looking at how the parameter(s) are passed to the XX Engin and or how they are handled internally something perhaps not behaving as intended with the potential for better sound with certain settings.

Kind regards,


 on: March 10, 2019, 06:41:59 am 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt

Hi Stein,

I am the most happy with your counterweight because it is mighty difficult to in all honesty describe what I experience for the good cause of the Mach III becoming a bit more affordable. And this in the midst of people like you just having obtained the higher priced which should be for a good reason just the same.

I like to leave at at this and hope that people now have a well balanced description of everything.

Kind regards and thanks a lot,

PS: I will think about this cardboard because you may very well be right (and it is not the first time you are offering this suggestion Happy).

 on: March 09, 2019, 11:50:19 pm 
Started by numlog - Last post by numlog
It allows it to go higher but how high before something goes wrong im not sure. Usually its needed for stability when overclocking.

RAM speed is supposed to be an equal factor in the ''true latency'' of RAM, so you could do it the opposite way with overclocking - maybe thats better, but very high speeds are only supported with recent hardware. (my mobo and CPU are limited to 2133MHz)

 on: March 09, 2019, 07:22:42 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by stoni
Peter, what did I say some posts ago, maybe the 12/24 is the sweet spot blush1

Well, some words about my experience with the Mach III 14/28, Iíve had it for about a month now Ė upgraded from Mach I to Mach II and now Mach IIIÖ And just to make it clear, I do not for a second miss some umpf with the 14/28 in my setup, itís there in spades.  And the mentioned light-foot sound presentation I will say is its force Ė the more liquid and refined sound presentation is what Iíve always been looking for, my choice of hi-fi components reflects this.
Peter has said much about his Mach III SQ-impressions with his Phasure NOS1, myself I still have an older none NOS DAC, but interesting to see that I recognize many of Peters words about the new SQ.

First, the upgrade to Mach III was a bigger step than going from Mach I to Mach II, I agree with one of Peters description, the sound from the Mach III is like using a new DAC-technology.

The main difference is increased realism, like going from HD to 4K resolution on you TV. Listening to Sade, Kari Bremnes or other female singers, all sorts of muddiness, glory-filters, photo retouching, or whatever we shall call it, they are all gone. What is left is an utterly clean and natural voice, and a liquidity in the sound that is addictive. In addition, the holography and 3D-feeling are extremely good, if the soundtrack has preserved this information in a god way - the difference between a good and a bad recording however is shown even more clearly now

Itís indeed interesting to see/hear how much the PCís influences the DAC, and how sound can be bettered in my setup, even if the the DAC and loudspeakers are not any longer the newest models.

Regarding the price for the PC, I did some research before upgrading this time, and evaluated several other Audio-PC products. They all costed the same, or more than the Mach III. I admit some with better design than the Mach, but they were all PCís put together with old/low class PC-parts and CPUs. Parts costing considerably less than what Peter uses. At the end, the choice was easy, Peters PC is indeed in another class than the rest out there!

A final tip, take off the lid and replace it with a black cardboard, sounds better hel-loo


 on: March 09, 2019, 12:58:23 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt

I will write a post elsewhere about this

There :
Re: Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply.

 on: March 09, 2019, 12:51:48 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt

Hi there All,

In the OP I now rated the 12/24 equally to the 14/28 and the 16/32. But watch out : while the 14/28 may be marginally "less" (whatever that exactly is) than the 16/32, and the 10/20 has its specialty in a somewhat darker and more "heavy" sound which is very easy to like very much, the 12/24 seems to be the emphasis of the 10/20.

Right ...
What does that all mean and what happened ?
By accident I saw a 12/24 available against a "sale" price, so as a rightfully obsessed audiophile I bought it. I mean, nobody would anyway (as it seems after a small year) and without the experience nobody ever will. This, while this processor is significantly cheaper than the next-higher, the 14/28. I mean, 600 euros is a lot of money for something which could work and only was not tried. Also, I figured that would it not work out, I could stuff it into an ERP Server Chassis (my other life).

So I struggled ...
At first I thought it was a kind of fine once you spent the money and have some need to judge it as fine (haha) but merely and more over, Ciska here told within a minute or two that this showed "less sharp highs". OK, my attention did not really go there and I also could not really hear what she meant, but that in itself should be a positive. Maybe not only to her, but also to new Mach III customers.
But I wasn't so sure ...

After two days I couldn't bear it any more. The sound was too dark (too much the emphasis of the 10/20) with the notice that I set this 12/24 to 10/20 from about the start and that all the time I contemplated to set it back to 12/24. But I didn't like the hassle (reboot 6 times all together plus attaching the monitor and the like). Instead I put in a 14/28 to see what I actually was missing or what I should achieve with the 12/24 (not knowing how to do it).

So Yes, the 14/28 is more refined. But similar to the 10/20 once you are used to that a bit, you can see what now lacks there (in the 14/28). And G-D I couldn't like it any more. So Yes it is refined, but the 12/28 brings forward things which I couldn't describe really and which just are not present with the 14/28 playing. What a stupid stuff.

A day further it went as far as being fed up with the 14/28 and the 12/24 was dunked back in (someone over here gets crazy of this, because I don't ever do these things myself).
But No, I did NOT like it for the better. Grrr.

I tried all the XXHighEnd settings I could imagine to be of importance here, but it just did not want to help. And - psychological - psychological - psychological ... all this time I was thinking of this kazillion possibilities I would have with cascaded Lush^2 and Blaxius^2 possibilities.
But should I ? Should I really try to solve it by such means ? I mean, the ^2 cables were never attempted to solve issues. Only to improve sound, right ?

I dove into my notes about the Lush^2 and found this description at the 2nd or 3rd configuration I ever tried, and the very first I registered :

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W
This showed a super sound.
It completely changes the sound from a somewhat congested (too white) highs to ever so lasting colored cymbals. Btw, this is what I had in mind with it for a change (I found the highs too profound).
What came with it is a super fluid/liquid bass which sings and plays music. I actually never experienced the bass like that.

And btw funny, I only now read the last line about the bass. I never saw this when I selected this configuration because I went for the issue with the indeed too white highs.

Well, I was cured instantly ! Now I suddenly had this completely different presentation of about all, but with things being right. The highs were now like real metal and with the UN-finesse metal should have. Yeah, "un-finesse", what's that then. Well, that should be too silky and more going towards plastic (this is way too drastically put). Say that it reminds of the Silverstone USB3 card but then with a somewhat higher resolution of the "holes" (I assume that people know what I mean here, and otherwise too bad). It implies a more being present of cymbals and maybe especially hi-hats. They get a life of their own. Not really their own space (which is an other phenomenon) but less blended with the music and more played by a (drummer) person.

But actually it isn't about this, although it solved the problem. Man, it is about that BASS. And first off about that : about how now THAT plays in its own hemisphere. And yes, that seems to be more about "own space" as such, and for a bass this could be what I want with it. I mean, how often have I talked about the electric bass player who is on stage with his separate and personal(ly chosen) amplification and speaker system ? And how unfair is that to us, not being able to replicate that physically ?
Well, IMO this combination of the 12/24 and particular Lush^2 configuration does precisely that.

I am not really sure how to describe the presentation as a whole; maybe it is about the specialty of being able to present umpf in everything where it is required (this even includes voices) without that leading to disco sound. This really gives the music a natural feeling with it never being too lean (thin). I think it will be so that the general character (nature) of it is still a "less sharp" highs which expresses in the very square representation (as in well-rendered transients) being more palpable. Snare drums feel more palpable and if you may attention to real life snares ... they are not so pain staking sharp (especially the maple wood ones are not). So this improves too; more wood (like the shell of the snare) where wood is to be.

So where does this leave current 14/28 and 16/32 owners ?
I wouldn't worry. I used the 16/32 myself for a couple months (a year ago when testing the then new Mach III). It is great. After that I tested the 14/28 - it is great (and I can listen to it regularly because almost everyone buys it and I sneak it in sorry, part of the job Happy).
But these are to-tal-ly different for sound. With that, the 12/24 is not a gadget either. And, the very first days (when it was not burned in yet, or my ears weren't) I dedicated it as very Rock oriented (suddenly all the AC-DC sounded great - no, superb with it). This did not change I think, but the rest now plays too. With more umpf. Less light-footed (and light-footed certainly is a virtue too).
I have been thinking about offering an "upgrade", which would be a possibility to exchange (replacing these processors is relatively very easy). But it still would be expensive, whatever *that* exactly is in this crazy world (of audio). Could be 1100 euros plus shipping. But you could exchange. This week this, the other week that. In the end you made a choice and indeed payed a 1100 extra for having the choice. It would require (!) a Lush^2 (but everybody has that, I think).
But do I advise this to anyone ? NO. The (for me psychological) problem is mere in what new Mach III customers to come should be offered. Would that be the 14/28 against more money with a kind of guarantee it is OK ? or would that be the 12/24 against 600 euros less with a 100% guarantee it is special but which you may not like ? ... or would that be the 1100 euros extra again so you can chose ??

One thing : people going for the 10/20 should seriously consider to spend ~300 more and pick the 12/24 ? Not even that. But (and now don't get confuses please) : people who think that for "descriptive reasons" they should go for the 10/20 against 950 more for the 14/28 (let alone the 16/32 which is 1400 more), should go for the 10/20 *and* the 14/28 (not 950 more but 1100 more - not a big deal). Thus with the "descriptive" reasons I mean : if you go for the more dark sound which inherently is better for rock-alike music, then the 10/20 suffices and is normal, while the 12/24 is 5 fold that and could be too much of it. So all what you are doing is contemplating between the more refined sound of the 14/28 (or 16/32) and the somewhat more "heavy" sound of the 10/20 or certainly more heavy sound of the 12/24 together, against about the same price.

OK, I better stop. wacko

PS: The 16/32 is reinstated, assuming odd production problems with it (6 months or so ago) to be behind us by now.

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 0.063 seconds with 10 queries.