XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
January 27, 2015, 02:09:58 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
 71 
 on: January 19, 2015, 03:39:23 pm 
Started by CoenP - Last post by JohanZ
Hi Peter,

Now after four week with the NOS1a i want to share my experience with you.
I was very happy with the NOS1 and I could hardly imagine that it could sound better! I'm using speakers with compression drivers for the high and middle frequencies.
The NOS1a is another level: detaills, space, etc. You can read a lot of positive reactions on the forum. I have the impression that I have more Bass. Good for the Piano to have more body. Im listening very often to jazz. But on some cd's the acoustic bass becomes very annoying (Kate Bush-title track Areal. This was with Windows 7. Some cd's sounded complete different. Piano with more space around it.  I have read the Win 7 /Win 8 discussions on your forum many times, so i decided to install Win 8 expecting to get a better bass. Windows 8 is a big change. The bass is better, but sometimes still to much/ annoying. The music is more in your face. When i'm talking and playing music, the music irritates me sometimes. Very detailled but i'm missing the space around instruments. Missing 3d space/image and depth. I have tried to change the XXHE parameters, but the influance is minimal. I'm using under clocking and all the usual Win 8 XXHE parameters. I've changed the interlinks but the effects are minimal. I'm thinking to go back to Windows 7 to get a more relaxed, 3d, spatial sound. Any suggestions to improve the sound in Windows 8? (any change to develope an OS for XXHE?  Wink)

High regards Johan

 72 
 on: January 19, 2015, 11:44:17 am 
Started by CoenP - Last post by PeterSt
I am actually waiting for some feedback ...
Not that you need to try when not intended in the first place, but I assume someone did ?

 73 
 on: January 19, 2015, 08:33:12 am 
Started by Stanray - Last post by PeterSt
Hi Stanley,

If you switch on Logging, then in the XX log file you will be able to see which image is causing the problems. You then may also be able to see what's special with that one.
You can attach the log file if you want.

I really never receive this message anymore.

Regards,
Peter

 74 
 on: January 18, 2015, 11:20:43 pm 
Started by vrao - Last post by Nick
49.152MHz (Mb/s). But then I am used to play stereo ...
yes

Lol, yes I forgot we have two ears and two channels.

Best regards,

Nick.

 75 
 on: January 18, 2015, 11:13:09 pm 
Started by Stanray - Last post by Stanray
Peter,

I still get the above mentioned message with some albums.

Regards,
Stanley


 76 
 on: January 18, 2015, 10:17:31 am 
Started by vrao - Last post by PeterSt
49.152MHz (Mb/s). But then I am used to play stereo ...
yes

 77 
 on: January 18, 2015, 08:17:36 am 
Started by vrao - Last post by vrao
Hi Nick,
Interesting points you bring up!
This whole issue arose with the present USB cable, wherein I noticed data sync issues, and dynamic compression. I asked the maufacturer, and he mentioned it was good for only 196/24.

So to all who are looking into USB Cables, consider bandwidth as an important parameter.

The YFS cable is fine, and its tour will continue for now.

VJ

 78 
 on: January 17, 2015, 10:49:19 pm 
Started by vrao - Last post by Nick
VJ hi,

768 by 32 bit requires bit transfer at 24.58Mhz. USB 2 in its fastest mode (used by the NOS1) has a carrier frequency on the cable of 480 MHz so even with the overhead of the USB protocol the 24.58mhz data transfer rate will not be a problem.

Where the cable bandwidth is important is that the link transfers data in short bursts carried at the 480mhz link speed so the cable needs to be good enough to accurately transmit the 480mhz carrier waveform.

Evidence is that there are a number of variables that go into making the transfer over USB run well, these appear to be linked to the accuracy of timing and electrical transmission and how effectively the data in at the receiving end can be clocked in. IMHO Cables are perhaps not the prime consideration but do have a role to play in getting the USB link to run well for music data.

Regards,

Nick.

 79 
 on: January 17, 2015, 06:41:39 pm 
Started by vrao - Last post by vrao
After a talk with a manufacturer, I found not all USB cables are the same, most bandwidth limited.
So question is what mb/s is required for 768/32? And can our present USB cables handle it?

VJ

 80 
 on: January 16, 2015, 10:35:36 pm 
Started by Nick - Last post by Nick
Peter hi,

Thanks for the comments, they are very helpful.

The bandwidth of the analyser looks as if not high enough;

I think the band width its fine for what the trace is highlighting. The scope used is just just a general 200mhz scope so it cannot get anywhere near the resolution needed to look at clock rise cycle jitter in the range of you super fast analoge sope. What is highlighting though is that the wave form distortions with the PC switched on that Iím seeing are so severe that they are easily picked up even on a scope of this type.

Even the basic mask function of the scope is easily triggered. As a note to exceed the mask shown in the trace the amplitude error has to be > +- 200mv or the time axis by > +-3 ns. That's bad repeating momentory external noise distortion on what is a low phase noise clock wave form.

The grounding is the probe possibly is not in good fahsion.

We are thinking the same thing, to be honest I was a bit embarrassed to show the a clock wave form as messy as the attached. I am measuring at the clockís output before coax to the mobo but at the injection point on the Mobo itís much better.

I had opened an edit on the post straight after submitting it and started to write an addition to say that there is a possibility that scopeís probe ground set up might influence the observed wave form, but I did not update in the end.  The probes are ground referenced to PE which isnít good with so much SMPS noise about becuase of the PE loop between the scope and mobo PE wiring. It would be nice to use a differential probe set up for this measurement.  I do have a second basic scope that has a floating probe ground (it can be battery powered) so Iíll take a look with this and also probe at the Mobo.

Itís a shame I cannot show the real time trace being displayed. The scope has digital phosphor persistence to show wave intensity and 50k refresh per second rate. When looking at the trace in real time, the main wave is solid but when the PC is running there is a constant flicker deviation of the wave form momentarily visible traces around the main wave. Looking at the real time trace switch mode noise seems likely, I was sort of expecting to see this but the noise source need to be proven if possible. It would be great if it were then possible addressed it.

Best regards,

Nick.


EDIT

I just looked at the trace and can see now why you mentioned ground bounce. The frame I have selected happens to break the mask just after the wave dropes to zero. I should have mentioned that when paging through the captured frames the mask errors occur througout the clock cycle. At the top the bottom and rise and fall phases of the clock cycle. This is why i'm thinking PC SMPS noise might be the source. The reason to for doing the frame analysis was to try to get a feel for the error frequency and to see if it had a pattern. I could use a decent FFT  Happy 



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 0.239 seconds with 15 queries.