XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
August 20, 2019, 03:56:48 am *
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 30, 2019, 03:19:41 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt

Hi there Roger,

Without further elaboration which would get complicated anyway, I would put them 20cm above each other, that being the smallest diameter of the implied half circle. Notice that this requires 20 cm behind your rack as well.
Because there's the rule that each 90 degree bend consumes 10cm of extra length, this adds 20 to the 20 cm to the vertical distance you already had. Take again 10 cm extra per end because of the plug's ends which are extra stiff.

Are we at 50cm now ?


 on: June 30, 2019, 03:15:19 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by Gerard

Long time no see  Wink

Could you please put a new photo of the best new setting?


 on: June 29, 2019, 08:15:20 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by roger567
I am looking for a BNC interconnect between a Chord M Scaler and Hugo TT2 and have read many wildly positive reviews about the Blaxius^2.

What length of cable would you recommend for units that sit on top of one another? The sockets are less than 5cm apart.

I've read that the Blaxius cable stiffness means it can make this position impractical, but it is unclear whether they meant it cannot curve through 180 over short lengths, lifts the upper unit or just that it sticks out the back horizontally, requiring clearance at the back.

There is also the issue of whether short lengths <1m sound shrill with the Blaxius as they do with some other cables.

Any advice?

 on: June 29, 2019, 12:30:34 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by badgerline
Peter, the difference between 'similar' and 'the same' can tend towards infinity - my point is only that there is something special about the consensus that I do not hear in any other configuration so far. My taste is always for less obvious bass and high end - a midrange freak, if you like. Therefore, the quality I am looking for is perhaps precisely this more mono presentation (presumably because of the less 'projected' spatial cues, which are both subjectively and objectively higher-frequency-related phenomena, and I dislike any sense of hyped higher frequencies).

If anyone knows another 'dark' config, please post it here, as it is those that I am not really finding aside from the consensus. The annoying thing is that I don't know whether the unique smoothness I get from the consensus owes to the fact that it is the only one that I have used enough to have 'burned it in'.

 on: June 29, 2019, 02:14:36 am 
Started by manisandher - Last post by acg

Anthony haha, I thought you would come up with that in this very topic.

Glad I did not disappoint!

Looking forward to it.  Am a bit sad about the NOS2 shelving which would suit me more than the multi-band dac with filters at pc software level.  Analogue sources and all that...

 on: June 29, 2019, 02:10:12 am 
Started by keithtaruski - Last post by acg
Sweet.  Thanks Peter.

 on: June 28, 2019, 11:21:03 am 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt

Maybe it depends on the high frequency response, also the low frequency response (as you may know I have that a kind of ridiculous here, although 10 others on this forum have the same) while the speed of the system also does a thing or two. In other words hmm no, they don't all sound the same to me. Not at all. But there are only a few worth while further investigating *while* we indeed always seem to come back on that "consensus" one.

Btw, what I noticed is that against the previous config I used (not sure it was mentioned in here as the last one, but I think so) is that the "consensus" config, is almost mono compared to that other. It gets used to after a few hours, but the difference on that is crazy already.

Or what about that ultra flat one (like in one ft only) with totally crazy width.
So the differences are in those aspects as well (or even profoundly).


 on: June 28, 2019, 11:15:33 am 
Started by manisandher - Last post by PeterSt

Is this something to do with the "USB replacement" interface you teased last year?

Anthony haha, I thought you would come up with that in this very topic. But no.
First off, what I talked about last year never came about in the first place (I suppose because of a lack of time). Secondly, what I talked about ~2 months ago, was something else, albeit still an interface at that level. But as it appeared (I bought a box full of hardware for it) that can not work yet. I expect it to come, though.


 on: June 28, 2019, 11:11:31 am 
Started by keithtaruski - Last post by PeterSt

Hi Anthony,

Below you see my SSD used space for ~24tB of music. The Galleries imply some redundancy in them, but by far most is in there only one time.

Best regards,

 on: June 28, 2019, 03:13:08 am 
Started by keithtaruski - Last post by acg

On the SSD, in the root, create a folder with a nice name, e.g. \Galleries.

Hi Peter,

A quick question that hopefully you are able to answer just as quickly.

So, I have made my Storage Spaces to hold my music, one consists of 4TB SSD's and the other 6TB HDD's.  I am not sure at this stage if I will use the HDD Storage Space to act as a backup to the SSD Storage Space, or if they will each be configured as two way mirrors.  The HDD's are slow to spin up when searching which is why I have gone with SSD's to store most of my music.

I have 9TB of music, growing all the time.  How much SSD room do I require to hold the Galleries?  I was thinking of adding a M2 SSD just for the Galleries assuming they do not require anywhere near as much room as the music files themselves, and M2 drives are very fast.



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 0.032 seconds with 10 queries.