XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
July 16, 2018, 06:05:45 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: June 03, 2018, 10:31:39 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by PeterSt
Hi Robert, - great that is.

The Queen's (ever lasting) birthday, however, seems to be June 9. Well, the celebration of it (I think she's 92 or so long gone). Good to be prepared of course but don't make it too wild over there. Plus, Charles won't like that. If only Diana would still be among us ...



 on: June 03, 2018, 07:44:34 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by Robert
       Fresh W10 installation has worked with XXhighend at last. I'd almost swear I have better sound with Netflix and Spotify. Getting Microsoft network to work was a pain to see Music file server. Anyway guess I will register so I can get the most out of it in reduced mode. Have to say Ram Os 2.10 is sounding amazing in contrast we have a long weekend for the Queens birthday. Listening to unplayed files since 2.10 upgrade and settings. Thanks.


 on: June 02, 2018, 03:36:57 pm 
Started by manisandher - Last post by arvind
Hi Mani,

I agree with your observation on the SQ with the Phisolator bypassed. The mids & highs are a lot clearer, however they have lost a bit of sparkle.

The lows are deeper & firmer though a tad louder.

Overall this set up is more musical.

Iím going to continue with this set up for a longer time to reconfirm my observations across different genre.

Best regards


 on: June 02, 2018, 09:41:51 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by PeterSt
It did trip with same SFS settings.

Robert, to be clear ... if it trips with two different SFS settings, then it is OK and just the music (or the rip). Notice that both are harmless.

The software failure would be that e.g. 1 bit (out of a 16 bit audio word) is missed/skipped, which from there on would make a mess of the remainder (a softest bit will become the loudest etc.). This can theoretically be incurred for by the relatively complex "alignment" of the memory player vs the SFS controlling what you actually want in memory. I (XXHighEnd) can do something wrong there - Windows can do something wrong. However, this is highly unusual unless I introduce mistakes myself. This was so with IIRC 2.07 or 2.08. Then it started to happen to many people, but depending on the SFS setting ...

Best regards,

 on: June 02, 2018, 05:53:32 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by Robert
It did trip with same SFS settings. One track was from a Bob Marley remastered ripped CD Kaya. The other from Peter Green The Best of ripped CD not remastered. I didn't think either were that dynamic being older recordings. Anyway I have left Crack Detect on. Thanks


 on: June 02, 2018, 05:31:41 am 
Started by Robert - Last post by PeterSt
Hi Robert,

I see there is a Disable Crack button recommended for Engine 3,4. This does work when activated. Is this OK?

No, it is not advised at all to disable Crack Detect; it is your protection to software failure and how otherwise static (the most loud noise) can emerge.
When you are sure it will be or the rip which is not 100% OK or when it is just "the music" (see below) you can switch it off for the occasion.
If Crack Detection trips on two different SFS settings, you can be ensured that it is just the rip or the music (and not software failure) and nothing will go wrong when it is switched off.
For your own "safety", don't forget to switch it back on after you played the album.

With the (internal) thershold setting in 2.10 it very occasionally trips on normal music although the music will be the most dynamic.
Indeed with bad rips and glitches in the resulting file, it will tip too.

Indeed it will be so that a next XXHighEnd version will allow more of "inordinate" dynamics hence it accepts more ("glitch") as normal music.

If not clear, please ask further.

Best regards,

 on: June 01, 2018, 11:15:57 pm 
Started by Robert - Last post by Robert
Peter I have never had issues with this until now.

But odd tracks on albums throw this message up. They are from ripped CD's. I re ripped them but still Crack message. I see there is a Disable Crack button recommended for Engine 3,4. This does work when activated. Is this OK? I see you have been playing with Crack Detect in your latest Mach III post. I don't know anything about Crack Detect which is why I'm cautious.


 on: June 01, 2018, 12:14:35 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt
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 ?


 on: June 01, 2018, 09:37:37 am 
Started by manisandher - Last post by manisandher
Strangely (not at all) enough because she could not espress what was different, she started to tell me what I had been fumbling there : I connected the Clairixa.

Yes! A direct connection makes the Lush sound a bit like the Clarixa->Phisolator.

It is all a step backwards, unless you like the preciseness of the Clairixa of course.

Not a step backwards in my two systems, IMO. I can't go back to the Phisolator now... not with the Mach II anyway.


 on: June 01, 2018, 05:36:35 am 
Started by manisandher - Last post by PeterSt
So many options ...

Haha, yesterday I switched to the Mach II because of an issue with the Mach III I could not solve before play time (and I was losing play time already Happy). 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.

Something happened which made it an interesting listen for the remainder ...

I fumbled a bit to connect the Lush to the direct input (in the blind - who organized the inputs that way ?whistle) 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.

The music was playing no 10 seconds in this no-Phisolator situation and I was thrown a "BRIGHT !!".
Usually in such a situation this is always followed by an "or too loud perhaps" which is the logical conclusion often, as the louder the more harsh when the highs ain't right. My response to that : "well dear, it can't be the too loud because I am 6dB under par at this moment". And FYI, I already did that because the first 30 minutes with Phisolator made me do that (it really sounded to loud).

Ciska kept on being persistent that I played louder than other days and without real intent at first, I started to play music I played the past few days and asked what the actual difference was she heard. I heard only flatness BUT which was lifted a bit because of the brightness and she now kept on being persistent that there wasn't much difference with the past days. But mind you, I played music which should exhibit the sparkle and tinkle I spoke about yesterday and without that exhinit in the same music it is just "music" (in this case it was Yello's last studio album).

Strangely (not at all) enough because she could not espress what was different, she started to tell me what I had been fumbling there : I connected the Clairixa.

Right. And I couldn't have thought of a better way of telling you the exhibit over here because many of you know very well how the Clairixa sounds in comparison to the Lush. So *that* sound comes forward when I use the direct input, with of course the Lush.
It is all a step backwards, unless you like the preciseness of the Clairixa of course.

Don't be confused about the text above; this was about the direct input vs Phisolator input and not about the Mach II vs the Mach III - although the discussion over here went on about that very subject once I told what I had done. But this is for the Stealth III topic (later today).

Let me add explicitly her repeated words : brighter - more clear. There was also something about more layers and better left right movement (not sure whether we should call this left/right separation because the separation as such would be a negative (not integrated)). Fact is that this was about elaborating what she heard for positives (once the music was fairly flat and not about smashing cymbals) while actually she was negative only. "Too bright and too loud ... for sure too loud".

I will continue with hopefully more interesting stuff in the Mach III topic.


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 0.031 seconds with 10 queries.