Review of Nicks Tweeks

[boleary]

Nick's (intitial) tweeks on his new system are pretty significant so I thought it might be a good idea to put them in a topic of their own. (If this isn't agreeable please delete this thread) They are reprinted below:

Summary of tweeks.

1)   Eliminate ALL fans (CPU fan case fans etc)
2)   Take power off ALL drives but one (OS XX and Music on the single HDD)
3)   Power the one HDD from a linear power supply
4)   Remove power connections from DVD and Floppy Drives etc
5)   Turn off hyper threading
6)   Over Clock the CPU
7)   Disable CPU “Clock Spreading” 
   Turn off Intel Virtualisation
9)   Use PCIe USB 3 (NEC chipset)
10)   XX processor scheme 3, SFS around 350mb,
11)   Hygiene factor tweeks (Old hat stuff but for good measure)
a.   Disable Data Execution support (in Bios)
b.   Disable all Devices not needed for music (extra SATA controllers, USB ports etc etc in Device Manager)
c.   Disable all devices not used for Music in  Bios (Mobo
USB, Sound card, COM ports etc)
(Points 1 to 10 all have an effect individually, but together they really move music to the next level.

This post is specifically about 2 and 4 above which I would think should be the same for everybody. I was really surprised that #2, putting music directly on the OS/XX drive would make such a significant difference for the better, but it does. I have always used a secondary internal drive to store music, I've never kept any music on the OS drive. Today I ripped a cd directly to the C Drive music folder and was surprised at how much better it sounded. The SQ improved more when I unplugged the DVD drive and the secondary music drive--#4 above. For me this is both good and bad news: all improvements in SQ are good. Bad, though, because it looks like I might need to move the OS to a two or three terabyte drive so I can reripp my music to it.......a bit of a daunting task at this point. Why rerip? Well I tried to copy/paste music files from the secondary drive to the OS drive any they didn't sound as good as the music ripped directly to the OS drive!

Anyone know of a good therapist, I might be in need of one!

[Nick]

Brian hi,

I am pleased that you are getting some improvements, but you have my sympathy when it comes to moving that much music. Personally I have always just copied music and not noticed too much of a difference. What does seem to help is defraging the drive occationaly.

If you haven't already tried it one of the best tweaks is the PCIe USB card, well worth the 30 dollars.

Worth mentioning is that the list is about to change with a very big addition. I am working on a tweek that apears to be a game changer. I want to get a reasonable understanding of how best to apply it before I post but in essence it gets right to the hart of the biggest problem of using a pc as a transport electrical noise and ground contamination. At the moment it's 5 steps forward and one or two back but I would like to see all upside from it before I post. I am getting superb sound from clock res of 5 ms and NOS buffer size of 4ms eg this approach really changes things.

Ultimatly i think it may need Peters expertise to test it in order to do it justice. I just do not have the test kit to work out the best way of using this equipment but I will post as soon as things are settled out enough from subjective testing.

Best Nick.

[boleary]

Thanks Nick, Iv'e had the PCIe card from the beginning. Have you specifically compared a filed ripped directly to your OS to one pasted there from another drive? Just wondering. Here there is a definite decrease in "glare" with the file directly ripped to the OS, similar to the difference when one unplugs unused drives.

It's really going to take some time to sort through all the possibilities. Very much appreciate your shared findings!

Brian

[CoenP]

Isn't this solved in 0.7 ?

The 'copy to xx disc' setting does not seem to work as well as having the music on the disc. But this tweak is all about having only one disc active, getting it into a deep sleep is not good enough, isn't it?

How about more (extra) linear psus?

Regards, Coen

[juanpmar]

I am getting superb sound from clock res of 5 ms and NOS buffer size of 4ms eg this approach really changes things.
Best Nick.

Hi Nick

I´ve changed the clock res from 15ms to 5ms and the NOS buffer size from 8ms to 4ms. The improvement is very noticeable, the sound is richer, the bass is firmer and deeper and there are more harmonics. Another step forward in my system although I can´t use yet all of the points in the tweeks list.

Thanks again,
Juan

[listening]

Hi all,

I agonized over the tweaks a lot and most of them are really effective and of exceptional value. But the success depends much on the individual hardware. Looking ahead there should be hardware which is reduced to the essential functions, which avoids the use of multi-purpose ICs and switching PSUs as used in modern PCs. But that's a matter of time and money and a dream actually. If the actual tweaks are helping so much what could be possible with specialized hardware?

Georg

[Nick]

Juan hi,

That's interesting, i agree with your descrition of the sound from these settings. In my case I had assumed the settings were working due to the additional hardware I am using to isolate the pc and DAC.

When i think about it now I have not tried lower clock res and USB latency since I built the fast pc recently. Might it be that the enabler for these settings is the speed of the PC not the additional hardware ?

Best,

Nick.

[Nick]

Hi all,

I agonized over the tweaks a lot and most of them are really effective and of exceptional value. But the success depends much on the individual hardware. Looking ahead there should be hardware which is reduced to the essential functions, which avoids the use of multi-purpose ICs and switching PSUs as used in modern PCs. But that's a matter of time and money and a dream actually. If the actual tweaks are helping so much what could be possible with specialized hardware?

Georg

Hi Georg,

I did some very basic tests recently trying to improve the quality of the ground connection between the PC and DAC. The tests were quite crude (cutting ground pins on a PCIe USB board and inserting a cleaner ground). The result was a two steps forward two steps back in terms of sound quality but it was possible to hear what may happen if zero ground coupling were better applied.

When you look at it a PC it is just about the worst device you could think of to drive a high resolution analogue audio chain down stream for the reasons you mention. The hardware I have makes it possible to completely electrically isolate the DAC and PC (the only electrical link is via the mains connection of the pc and dac which happen to use the same wall socket).

Listening without PC noise entering the dac gives quite profound results. it's all about many, many subtle changes in the sound but the effect of the setup is superb. I am not entirely sure that I have the best implemtation but for the first time in 7 years I think that the PC has the capacity to be a transport of the highest possible quality. Of course this is using a NOS1 and XXHE 

Best,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

A very personal opinion (and even from one person (me) which is not the best idea of course) :

All we do and try at this moment is a bit of wasted time. Sort of : still too many things are wrong to make one element be that game changer. Example :

When Nick has isolated the DAC from the PC hence no electrical noise can come from the PC, then how is applying a better PS to a HDD going to make a change ?
So, two things wrong here :

1. Is the PC really isolated from the DAC (with my suggestion of not);
2. Is it electrical noise we try to avoid, or is it something else (with my suggestion of the latter).

We must be very (VERY) careful not to base our conclusions on so-called logic, because the logic we can see isn't based upon all the parameters there are. And worse, for the larger part it will be based on irrelevant parameters.

If we think that direct ripping to the OS disc sounds better than copying a rip from elsewhere, so be it. Eh, what ? well, that it sounds better, and not that you think it sounds better.
Am I making myself clear ? ... I mean, I just tried to emphasize that everyone here, without exception, is believed by me and hopefully by all of the others just the same. BUT, that doesn't mean that the reason is justified, or worse, that we start to think of reasons ourself to justify another one's perception. Example :
Yes, I will believe that direct rip sounds better, but no way I will think that this is "thus" because it has been applied to the OS disc. Not as such.

I know I sound as vague as can be, but I have problems with describing what's really needed (apart from a shrink - hey Don, where are you ??). So, apply electrical isolation, but next first prove that it works out, and never think it works because all now is isolated and THUS it works.
No way ...
(for me)

On that isolation again - there will be something working all right, but first better scratch your head about your findings that (e.g.) a clock resolution change still changes sound. Can't be eh ? or can it because it does ?

The latter obviously. So what was that isolation worth then ? should be something, because it changes sound. But the real merits ? on my part nothing. I mean, nothing until you (we) know what the change (into isolation) really means / does.

Still with  me ? I hope so. Because all I wanted to say is : so many things are not understood *and* are in our chains ! - that it is fairly useless to, for example, rerip our collection to the OS disc for better sound. And of course to be done again, when the OS has to be restored, because otherwise it will be a copy.
Ha ha.


Ok, I actually wanted to respond to this topic with another text, and I could just as well have left it to that, but when I started typing I thought to emphasize the importance of having a good base. This, somewhat combined perhaps with me from my side letting know the good track Nick is on - which I am sure he wants to shout outloud but which I told him to hold back a bit at this time. Anyway, this is what I originally wanted to say :

Yesterday I started to play music, and it sounded like sh*t. Really, it didn't last till somewhere in a second track before I noticed what was wrong : My Nobel winning feature got shut off (which of course goes by a button) and the sound was completely distorted because of that.

Oh ? Distorted ?

Yes. But no different than what you are all listening to because you don't have that button yet. And indeed, what all sounded normal and good to me before, already now has become unlistenable because of getting used to that better.
And so I imagine a few people tearing out floppy drives and all, while their base is that distorted sound. How could that ever work out ? it can't in my view.

The message is not to stop right now and wait for 0.9z-7 first (ok, it should be the message all right), but the message merely is that nothing is what it seems, and that the chance is at least 50% that what we tweak for the better, actually made it worse, though the result at present time is better nevertheless.

What is and remains the golden rule in my view, is that when something improves by hardware changes, the very first thing we HAVE to think about is whether it could be acting as a smoothening filter, serving a wrong cause; It is the most complicated phenomenon of all.
It really is the most complicated, but somewhere there must be this absolute best. To find that, we must have base elements which can be trusted. Well, I don't see many of those yet. USB3 (/NOS1) sounds better eh ? Oh, how ? It only *is* better once we know the how. But most probably by that time the real cause will have been attacked.

[stefanobilliani]

This is indeed a nice post I did enjoy reading Peter .
It is like when building amplifiers , we can be "topologists" and it is quite different than tweaking an existing design .
When something makes our living happy with, is both for the possibly to choose ( that transistor caracteristics... ) or that we like the sound of a particular form of power supply . But usually we can explore and talk about the reasons for that we can like better that topology instead of another , and why it may be simple or not , or not semplicistic . 

For example of the USB 3 , last night I did play with the Renesas driver few options that are : using or not the power management , or try the last driver available .
It's hard to descrybe how all of them produced different sound presentation in different and not so obvious ways .
For example , in my case I am about to say that *using* the power management ( with the 2.0.34.0 driver)  , I do enjoy music very easily on the other hand it not allows to go to Minimized OS ( for me ... but I'll try more) and should  imagine something is going on with it .
Moreover, I did try the very last driver available of the Renesas USB 3 ( the new 2.1.32.0) and it was like completely another system of listening . And for that, can't explain how  .
 I am with you . :-) will wait for the 0.9z-7 .

Stefano

[boleary]

Peter, thanks for the sanity you bring to the table. Though I must say that because there are so many unknowns simple tweeks can and should be tried by folks here, cause consensus can provide a guide or direction for investigation.

Okay, I'm gonna go have another glass of that cool-aide.

Have a great day!

Brian

[PeterSt]

Mwah guys ... I must be careful not to let my message come across wrongly ...

It is totally obvious that we won't get anywhere without trying things. So, trying is of vast importance - hence my message to bring across is NOT that we are wasting our time with this trying. I fairly much said so though and it was hooked only to my idea of 0.9z-7 being so much better - and prevent you from starting all over again, but worse : not being able to see through your own tweaks or tweeks, them possibly now being destructive to you without realizing that. Similar to my ever saying that expensive cables should be torn out first before attempting something like the NOS1 ... You can always go back to them.

This is also why we shouldn't "just apply" one or the other tweak someone comes up with. It may help for him, but it may not help you at all, while applying it blindlessly may again result in the same : something is now (more or less) destroying, and you will never notice it in your life anymore. And so :

How good would it be when we could see through the real merits of the tweaks in order ...
first.

[boleary]

I totally get what you are saying and I don't mean to be contrary at all. 

[Nick]

All,

So reading this I think [?] we are just agreeing about tweaks.

For my part my personal ethos here is;

• Develop an idea,
• Try it out,
• If there is a subjective improvement describe what happened for folks to try if they want to,
• Gauge feedback in terms of general applicability and effectiveness.
• Try to understand it and exploit it or don’t understand it and  still exploit it.

The value of tweaks ?

Well, hands up anyone in a hurry to use USB 2 again after trying PCIe USB 3 ports ? We don’t understand exactly what makes this tick, but it does work. I will feel better when we do understand why it works and I really hope with the understanding that other possibilities may become visible but until then personally I would not be without it.

The stuff I post is meant to offer up ideas, to stimulate discussion, and help with system tuning (no guarantees offered  ). I try not to post unless tweaks subjectively  improve my system's sound and the tweaks may not work in other peoples systems. If you give them a go, please always be ready to roll them back if they don’t work for you or things move on and they are no longer necessary for any reason. 

Nick

[Nick]

Peter hi,

I drafted a long post but in reviewing your very valid points I realised it all boils down to a few  points.

1) Evidence is mounting here that signal and ground coupling with the PC is a big problem. Lots of points in the system set up I have arrived at are pointing towards this.
2) I agree that there is new componentary entering the replay chain that could be doing things that as yet are not understood.
3) I cannot offer any definitive proof of the above only circumstantial arguments and I accept this could just be wrong.

What is and remains the golden rule in my view, is that when something improves by hardware changes, the very first thing we HAVE to think about is whether it could be acting as a smoothening filter, serving a wrong cause; It is the most complicated phenomenon of all.
It really is the most complicated, but somewhere there must be this absolute best. To find that, we must have base elements which can be trusted. Well, I don't see many of those yet. USB3 (/NOS1) sounds better eh ? Oh, how ? It only *is* better once we know the how. But most probably by that time the real cause will have been attacked.

I agree but I defiantly stand by what I said about the sound. If its "smoothing" then I say give me more (I don't think it is). I am looking forwards to your hear something like this . I feel confident that that one way or another this will lead to good things.

Best regards,

Nick

Ps I would still bet some beers on PC related noise being a big factor but I am happy to lose the bet in exchange for a better understanding

[Scroobius]

I would still bet some beers ...... I am happy to lose the bet

.... Happy to lose beers? does not compute!!!

[PeterSt]

Ok, about the USB3 only for now ...

As you will know Nick, all these "power" related tweaks or changes, influence largely. And people, we are talking about the mere micro level of changing things. Like another type of capacitor, its size, the number of them. Say, how something like the NOS1 evolved - but now in aftermath. Now :

*If* we are able to memorize the characteristics of applications, so each become elements in that big whole we call our audio chain, then it should become possible to recognize what is going on.
Nicely put eh ? and a truth as the truth (looking for some nice english expression here).
Anyway, I am sort of reasonably capable of that, if only tweaks go one at the time and the base looked (very) good to begin with. Ok ...

Nick, you will know about my (offline) remarks at working on the battery powered NOS1, while you were working from that other angle, and sawing out all voltage regulators you could find. On of the things which could happen at both ends was the lack of highs. Pure blanketed. Particularly wrong sound ? no. Distorted ? the last we'd say about it.

The foremost importance of judging the blanketed sound wrong after all is the sheer lack of distortion without that blanket. So, fairly easy conclusion : that blanket is a blanket indeed, and is not something like taking out distortion - which could be perceived as overly fresh, hence wrong. But mind you, for me this blanket was nothing much different than a well respected Aplha DAC.
In any event, that blanket had to be removed once there, and obviously we removed our tweak, whichever it was at that time.
On my side I could easily see how USB noise would create the exact same characteristic.
So, noise. (totally inaudible, but easily measurable).

USB3 does the same. Well, sort of, and that is the problem. Still, it would be my guess that noise is creating the "USB3 sound", just because what happens is similar.

This is one step in my thinking. It's a wild guess. Ok, next :

Remember how I yesterday talked about how my Nobel winning 0.9z-7 tweak takes out distortion ?
Well, read back on how I started out with that. It was just a couple of weeks before USB3. I couldn't judge it as right on the long term. But now, only reasoning afterwards, what may have happened ?

Today it is 100% clear that this tweak hugely takes out a sort of distortion I won't tell about. It was made for it and from theory, and that all worked out. But, what actually happens ? the sound is again more accurate. Ehm, sound ?
This is the problem, because generally speaking no such thing as "sound is right" exists in digital. It is just too much wrong all over, and we should only be happy we can perceive it as music. Now, with my tweak the accuracy of the being off has to be emphasized. I mean, it can't go otherwise. This should happen in the higher frequencies, like above 5KHz. So, digital is quite wrong, and in the higher frequencies this (mathematically) shows more than in the lower.
All what is noise or general distortion as another layer, will smoothen that out. My tweak smoothens less.

How is it possible that with USB3 all suddenly fell in place ?
I really can think of one thing only : noise again. Should be fairly white, because I can't see it as a frequency.
The character of it (remember ?) is similar to that other USB noise. So, for me all still fits.

Here I must stop for this reasoning (without real conclusion because it can't have one (yet)).
But I didn't say I was finished.

When, in general, noise influences sound for the worse, there will be a clear pattern (visible). Frequencies. Now, all noise will carry a pattern, because it is generated from somewhere. It has an oscillating source. Always. Here too, it is inportant to see the relative difference it makes, because most often that pattern won't show itself because it is burries in that other many sources of noise. Have very many of them, and you will say "oh, that is white noise". Just because all the patterns mix, and the timespan to look over it is too short to see the long term pattern. And a small secret for you all is : the NOS1 has a pattern of over 60 seconds. Ehm, for all of you but 2, including myself 3.

So, imagine that one source pattern and say it is at -130dB. Not inaudibe, because it will be in your music, riding on any wave. It will be a "sharp" thing because it is one pattern only. It will easily show its frequencies in an FFT. It will be baaad.
How to solve it ? add more patterns. Not 100% white (might that exist) because it will only higher the level of it. But so many more that it randomizes whatever there was at first.

Now we sneak back to what USB3 could be doing ...
It seems clear to me (but I didn't sort out a single thing on it) that the higher rate USB3 is capable of, will have a higher frequency oscillating thing somewhere, if not a real oscillator (Nick, what's on that PCIe card ?). This will at least create a higher frequency pattern. It will randomize whatever there was in a fairly nice way.

How to solve it ? add more patterns.

Oh yea ? of course not. The base pattern should be removed. But it is exactly *this* we can not do. We only can theorize what could be creating them, and try to move that out (like voltage regulators). A normal human being can't do that, and maybe technically it is not possible. On this matter, NOS1 users may try to look at their gain stage in there, and see how empty the PCB has become since the first ("Juil@") version. A lot of work, but all focused on exactly this subject.

But *if* we would be able to remove that base pattern left, what next would happen is that now the USB3 pattern gets profound. So, that by itself is not not randomized anymore by the patterns we just took out.

So, hands up for those who want to go back to USB2 ? not mine, not yet. But you can wait for the day I do. Or someone else.


So you see ? I at least have a common sense explanation why USB3 now sounds better. Not that one needs to agree, but it is one. Assumed I am correct :

Do we accept this as better indeed ?
Well, it sounds better, so why not.

Do we have opportunities to improve from the proper angle ?
Maybe. But what comes first is that my assumption has to be correct. It may take years to find that out. But then still the answer is "maybe". So what to do it for ? If it sounds good it sounds good.

But now one which you all may not be familiar with :
If you really go far with this and have spades of experience, you may have another expression for what you hear, and it may go like this : "Wow, this sounds good man ! ok, I am not sure whether it is right, but it sounds good for sure".
Hey Nick, there you go ! With something like this, you can bet it is NOT right, but sounds good / better net. All you will know (should know !!) is that something is still wrong.
But also to remember (for others) : when we talk about "right" we are ridiculously close to reality - and in dangerous fashion. I mean, from there on nothing much has to happen or you will be totally annoyed.

The all over motto again :
By now we all have USB3 (at least the NOS1 owners I see on this forum seem to). Then there's Windows 8 to name something. Now, if at least one person would have the guts to try USB2 with that, all will be fine. But mind you, still assumed I am right on how USB3 can sound better, it can easily be so that no different hardware is doing it. It can just be the OS and how it deals with the higher frequency (of transport) needed, and that new OS can just make the difference. Or a Service Pack. Or an upgrade (we all of course shut off to begin with).


Ok, done. And then to think this is just the USB3 example.
But hopefully this great group gets the hunch of how we should think and look at things, or otherwise tell me how to avoid it. Yeah, that latter would be best ...

Peter

[manisandher]

This is the problem, because generally speaking no such thing as "sound is right" exists in digital. It is just too much wrong all over, and we should only be happy we can perceive it as music.

WOW! Hey, I understand this from a 'computer audio' perspective, but from a general 'digital audio' perspective this is quite a statement.

With your Nobel-winning tweak you seem to suggest that the problem with digital audio sits purely on the replay side and not on the recording side. I can't undersand why the ADC process would be any easier than the DAC process, unless the filtering required during ADC (at 16/44.1 at least) is trivial compared to the filtering required during DAC.

In any event it kind of reminds me of something that Tim de Paravicini said about tape. Something along the lines of: it's easy to record onto tape but very difficult to extract the maximum information off tape on replay.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hi there Mani,

I am not sure where you got it from that it's only the playback side of things ? Maybe it is, but it wasn't really in my mind. And btw, I also didn't claim that analogue is ("thus") better. Maybe it is, although I don't think so; it is just very different - and that too wasn't in my mind at all.
It is also not really te subject I think, but, I can easily use it as an example to -at least for myself- prove how bad things are. So for example, what sure was in my mind earlier today, is the minuscule "distortions" (but noise) I was talking about here, while at the "higher level" things are so much more devistating to begin with. In digital I mean. But compare with analogue for fun, and reflect it onto my before post. Spades of very audible noise, so how would underlaying digital "compete" with that ? this time that digital devistating signal would be completely overwhelmed by noise, and the whole problem would not be there. Very technically speaking of course, but in the very same realm too. No sparkle (like from the NOS1) but very nice sound indeed (though noisy).

And so one more note on that "being right" or not ... we tend to go too far by now. We eliminate the one noise to run into the other more profound (despite it's lower level) and next can't rid of that. Solution ? add noise. Yep, that's what I said - following by the stupidity of such a solution.
But true at this moment.

Hey, my view !

Peter

[Nick]

If you really go far with this and have spades of experience, you may have another expression for what you hear, and it may go like this : "Wow, this sounds good man ! ok, I am not sure whether it is right, but it sounds good for sure".
Hey Nick, there you go ! With something like this, you can bet it is NOT right, but sounds good / better net. All you will know (should know !!) is that something is still wrong.

Peter,

So put another way the initial report is: wow it sounds much better than my system without it. But it is straight out of the box I know it can sound better because I know that power and ground scheme is not correctly implemted so yes I can hear

"I am not sure whether it is right, but it sounds good for sure"

and I know it needs some work but still it knocks the socks off the starting point without it. A week later much, much better, proving a usefull diagnostic to get information on other tweeks and I can now see where I'm going with it. I don't know if it will be "really" good or put another way how flawed it will be in the end but I doubt that it will leave my system.

The problem we have is no common reference to discuss it's effect on sound at the moment, so I could be describing "perfect" or I might be describing "filtered" into oblivion. My point is that without hearing this, comments are conjecture. If it helps to know there may be potential because I say its good then fine.


Regards USB 3

I agree the card runs at different frequencies to usb 2, your comments on noise spectrum are very interesting and I am sure relevant. There are additional large differences however in implementation that you may have taken into account but don't mention:

The USB 3 cards we are using are PCIe bus (500mb/s) vs USB 2 on PCI bus at (133mb/sec) with different interupt signalling, possible bus device contention for USB 2 on PCI  and an additional PCIe to PCI bridge in the signal path for USB 2. USB 3 cards are designed ground up to handel much higher data throughputs with all that this implies for reliability of input and output signalling. Clocks circuits are also generally much better implemented on USB 3 cards.  I know from experiment that PCI bus latency can modify sound charateristics so there is evidance that bus carateristics have an impact. These are significant points of difference between USB 2 and USB 3 and may also be contributing to the sound. These were the reasons I decided to try it out. There is no technical religion here however if USB 2 sounds "better" tommorow then I'll use it in a blink.

Regards,

Nick.

EDIT messed-up quote markups

[PeterSt]

I want to add one more thing :

Two times in a row (my larger posts in this topic) I made the mistake of proposing contentual subjects, while I actually wanted to share along which lines I think at developing (hardware and software). Now you know this you can see that hopefully, because I always left it at half examples. But I sure didn't make that clear enough.

So, nothing about proving points, wanting to know more or anything, but just to make clear how I think.
This can be of importance because, as I say so many other times, together we know more than one (me). So what I am actually hoping for is that when people think along these same lines, from there new things may spring; ideas may pop up.


What also has not been made clear yet, is that Nick is rather explicitly working on a better setup of all, for you out there. So what you will see in beteen the lines, might you read back on things, is that here and there my "hints" along those lines of my thinking go in his direction. It may seem strange, but with less words these things are / have been talked through offline just the same, but what evolves from this little topic is sharing it with you at the same time. This went unnoticed, but things may look strange.

"I am not sure whether it is right, but it sounds good for sure".
Hey Nick, there you go !

This is such an example, and it was nothing new to Nick.
I can explain another one :

The problem we have is no common reference to discuss it's effect on sound at the moment, so I could be describing "perfect" or I might be describing "filtered" into oblivion. My point is that without hearing this, comments are conjecture. If it helps to know there may be potential because I say its good then fine.

So to set all straight, what Nick is doing, I am working on just as well, but, my means are somewhat different. And like it happened earlier, Nick just starts this, to next find out I am working on it too, and next thing is that we work it out together. But similar to a previous time : by different means. So, exact same objective, but different means *and* results will be different. Net result ? a product for you all (NOS1 users and beyond !). Btw, Nick has a headstart because he has his running by now, while I have been fighting with stubborn manufacturers across the ocean, with the hope that my little idea will be shipped today. This is why I emphasized "at the moment" in Nick's text above.

I hope this clears up things a bit, and that my posts are not read as "don't do this, don't do that Nick !". The contrary ...

Peter

[boleary]

So I've been on the road most of this week. Driving home yesterday it occurred to me that the substantial difference in sound that I heard between a track ripped directly to the OS drive and one ripped to an internal storage drive might have had other influences: the track on the internal storage drive was ripped a year or so ago with the optical drive in my cheap Dell, and the same track on the OS drive was ripped with my new Plextor PX-L890SA (thanks Juan). When I got home I reripped the track with the Plextor onto the storage drive. Damn, even with the storage drive plugged in, I'm having a very hard time discerning any difference between the track played from the OS drive and a track played from the internal storage drive.

One thing is for sure, the optical drive used to rip your tunes makes a big difference. As for Nick's tweeks, still sorting through 'em. 

[CoenP]

Wrt to Nicks tweak #3, I immediately associated that one with a recent post on DIY audio. I added my take on building a semi linear supply as reply.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/100095-linear-pc-power-supply-5.html#post3088871

This #3 tweak makes sense.

Regards,Coen

[manisandher]

Summary of [Nick's] tweeks.

1)   Eliminate ALL fans (CPU fan case fans etc)
...

This was the tweak I really wasn't looking forward to, but I finally got around to taking all the fans out of Le Monster and installing the water cooler I've had sat around for the last 3-4 months. And I believe this has improved the sound. It seems smoother now, and less edgy. I know these sort of things are very subjective, but I'm pretty certain the bass is more prominent, which is very welcomed with Phase Alignment.

Why might the sound have changed? Well, there were 8 fans in total that I've just taken out. Although they ran at a pretty low rpm (and very quietly), they were all being monitored and powered from the mobo. Perhaps this was generating noise? I don't know, but I'm pretty certain the sound has changed for the better.

Mani.

[Nick]

Hey Mani,

8 fans wow ! I'm pleased (relieved  ) it worked for you as well. I agree with your description of the change to sound, very similar here too. With sound quality having moved so far recently even small changes can make quite a useful difference.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Nick]

Hi,

I wanted to offer some updates to this list of tweeks. The reason for this it that the noise problem I had is my system when the list was drawn up is now fixed. This means that I can hear much much being resolved now making some updated to the tweaks nessasary.

I have added additional comments below to items where observations have changed, one of which is very important to sound quality at least on my Asus X79WS MoBo.

Hope this is helpful, I would particularly recommend that Mani and Brian give 11c a go as we all have the same model of Mobo.

Regards,

Nick.

ps the comments are based on the High Res timer being disabled at a BIOS level as per another recent post.


Summary of tweeks.

1)   Eliminate ALL fans (CPU fan case fans etc)
2)   Take power off ALL drives but one (OS XX and Music on the single HDD)
3)   Power the one HDD from a linear power supply
4)   Remove power connections from DVD and Floppy Drives etc
5)   Turn off hyper threading

I plan to check this comment again and will post back.

6)   Over Clock the CPU
7)   Disable CPU “Clock Spreading” 
8 )   Turn off Intel Virtualisation
9)   Use PCIe USB 3 (NEC chipset)
10)   XX processor scheme 3, SFS around 350mb,

This was based on earlier versions of XX, on v09-z75 I am using SFS of 2mb (as is the case with many).
 
11)   Hygiene factor tweaks (Old hat stuff but for good measure)
a.   Disable Data Execution support (in Bios)
b.   Disable all Devices not needed for music (extra SATA controllers, USB ports etc etc in Device Manager)
c.   Disable all devices not used for Music in  Bios (Mobo
USB, Sound card, COM ports etc)

This was the big surprise for me, with my system now much more able to resolve than before I find that disabling devices in Bios is very bad for sound quality. With unused devices disabled I get a very unplesant hardness in the upper mid range, life leaves the music and it just sounds more digital. Its worth trying turning these devices on if you currently have them turned off in Bios, I was really surprised when tried this.

I have not gone as far as turning the LAN cards back on in Bios but that is the next test, will update again if this is posertive.

Note that whilst devices are back on in Bios I still have all of these devices disabled in Device Manager as per 11b)

[Stanray]

For those who currently have separate HDDs for Music and W7/XXHE, what is the easiest way to put W7/XXHE on the music HDD?

Is it necessary to reinstall W7 and XXHE on the music HDD, or put it on a new partition?

Thanks.

Stanley

[Nick]

For those who currently have separate HDDs for Music and W7/XXHE, what is the easiest way to put W7/XXHE on the music HDD?

Is it necessary to reinstall W7 and XXHE on the music HDD, or put it on a new partition?

Thanks.

Stanley

Stanley hi,

First back up your music drive (you proberbly don't want to re-rip 100s of CDs).

Then from there I would try to add a second partition to the music drive. I would make it at least 20gb so windows does not run out of space. Often you can add a partition and not lose the data on the drive but it's not guaranteed which is why you must back up your music.

Install windows on to the new partition and then install XX on the music drive either in the new windows partition or the partition where the music lives.

This should give you all of your OS music and XX on the same single physical HDD.

Hope this helps,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

2c here :

A raw install of W7 incl. SP1 takes 31GB.
If you leave it around that (no, not around - rather a little more) you won't be able to apply any upgrades (not that they are foreseen (like SP2) but possibly to W8).
We always make the OS partition 90GB to have some headreoom for upgrades plus sufficient space for additional programs. 90GB will do fine then, although it will be on the large size. Minimum would be 60GB.

Peter

[Stanray]

Thanks Nick, I will have a go for it asap.

The music HDD is 2 TB with 500 GB music, so plenty of space for a 90 GB partition.

For a re-installation of W7 and XXHE I will need a new activation key, sorry Peter 

Stanley

[PeterSt]

No problem at all Stanley. You know !

[manisandher]

... I would particularly recommend that Mani and Brian give 11c a go as we all have the same model of Mobo.

...

[11]c.   Disable all devices not used for Music in  Bios (Mobo USB, Sound card, COM ports etc)

Nick, did you mean enable here? I suspect you did as you mention that you were surprised. Anyway, let me know.

Cheers, Mani.

[PeterSt]

I didn't dare to ask, because I felt a bit stupid about it. But to me it seems that Nick tries to say that when a device is disabled in the BIOS it should also be disabled in Windows.
But if Nick is not saying that, I will.

Peter


PS: This is fairly new stuff, and 4 weeks ago I wouldn't have said such a thing.

[manisandher]

Hmmm...

In my office I use a PC with an i7-3770K CPU. The BIOS allows quite a lot of configuration. If I turn off all mobo USB devices in the BIOS (which I have), then no mobo USB devices show in Windows' device manager, i.e. you can't shut the devices off in BIOS and in Windows as there's simply nothing to shut off in Windows any more.

Mani.

EDIT: I need to learn to read Nick's post more carefully. The blue text is what has changed from his original list. So yes indeed, Nick used to suggest shutting devices off in the BIOS but has recently found that keeping them on and shutting them off in Windows instead is better.

[PeterSt]

Nick used to suggest shutting devices off in the BIOS but has recently found that keeping them on and shutting them off in Windows instead is better.

Haha Mani, which is almost as confusing. But you are correct, when I read it yesterday (I now recall) that I read it the same. But let me rephrase please :

Nick used to suggest shutting devices off in the BIOS but has recently found that keeping them on in the BIOS and shutting them off in Windows instead is better.

Assumed that we talk about devices which would disappear from the Devices List when shut off in the BIOS (which sounds logic to me) then the next logic could be that because they are not there you can't disable them, so it is better to have them there so they can be disabled. This, assumed that when they are not listed, they are NOT disabled.

*If* this matters in the first place, I'd say that after disabling them in Windows, they can be disabled in the BIOS afterwards. This then may matter (SQ) additionally.

Peter

[boleary]

Hey Nick, was traveling all week and will give your latest suggestion a try today or tomorrow. I know I have just about every device shut off in my bios. Should I turn everything back on?

Right now I cannot imagine my system sounding better.
But I've been here before only to be amazed "again" hanging out with you guys......!

Brian

[Nick]

Mani Peter hi,

I think you have picked up what I was suggesting correctly but just to confirm.

For a long time my "standard" PC set up disabled unused devices in BIOS. These include mobo sound card, USB, serial port, additional SATA controller types and LAN cards.

I was messing about with device settings in Device Manager and noticed a very slight I improvement in sound turning some disabled devices back on. This got me thinking if this happens at the OS level what about at the hardware level ?

So what I am suggesting in the update to the tweaks is:

A) In BIOS turn ON mobo sound card, USB, serial port, additional SATA controller types and LAN cards.

B) When these devices are turned on in BIOS  go into Device Manager and disable each of them.

Take a listen. In my case with the asus x79 mobo a whole layer of hardness and sibilance just went away  You may find that LAN card back on in BIOS is a bit "accurate" sounding but after trying listening to LAN  off / on a few times, for now I am sticking with LAN on.

Cheers Nick.

Update I meant to say I was sticking with LAN ON in bios in the last line (now edited to say "on").

[boleary]

So what I am suggesting in the update to the tweaks is:

A) In BIOS turn ON mobo sound card, USB, serial port, additional SATA controller types and LAN cards.

B) When these devices are turned on in BIOS  go into Device Manager and disable each of them.

My computer knowledge is limited. Where in device manager do I turn off, "serial port, additional SATA controller and Lan cards." There is nothing in my "System Devices" in Device Manager that identifies these. Thanks.

[Stanray]

/quote]

First back up your music drive (you proberbly don't want to re-rip 100s of CDs).

Then from there I would try to add a second partition to the music drive. I would make it at least 20gb so windows does not run out of space. Often you can add a partition and not lose the data on the drive but it's not guaranteed which is why you must back up your music.

Install windows on to the new partition and then install XX on the music drive either in the new windows partition or the partition where the music lives.

This should give you all of your OS music and XX on the same single physical HDD.

Hope this helps,

Nick.
[/quote]

A question to avoid mistakes: This second partition on the music HDD needs a drive letter to be allocated.

When I attribute it f.i. the letter "G:" and install W7 and XXHE on it, what do I do next?
The former HDD with W7 and XXHE, the "C:" drive, will have to be disabled. Do I then rename new "G:" to "C:" to have a proper boot?

Thanks

Stanley

[PeterSt]

Stanly,

I can't exactly follow (didn't take much time for that either) but if you are talking about the situation that your OS drive now has become G: ... do not try to rename that to C:. Too much is dependent on it and you may run into errors you can't solve. So, just let it remain G:. There is no problem with that, except you can't use G: for something else anymore.
If this is your situation at all ...

Peter

[Stanray]

Stanly,

I can't exactly follow (didn't take much time for that either) but if you are talking about the situation that your OS drive now has become G: ... do not try to rename that to C:. Too much is dependent on it and you may run into errors you can't solve. So, just let it remain G:. There is no problem with that, except you can't use G: for something else anymore.
If this is your situation at all ...

Peter

Thanks Peter,

Yes that was what I was trying to ask: does it matter that the OS is on "G" or on anything but C: for normally it is on C:.

Possibly a trivial question, but I wasn't really sure.

Stanley

[boleary]

Not sure why my last post here didn't get a response but that's okay, went to the doc and, despite what you may think, he said I don't have the coodies!

Anyway , yesterday I had the time to sort this out, I enabled all devices in my bios and ,voila, all the devices talked about before (LAN, Serial Port, etc.) suddenly appeared in Device Manager. The SATA controllers were a bit un-nerving cause I was afraid I might disable my OS drive! However I managed to discover the "location" tab for the drive which identified the SATA controller # it's connected to. After enabling the devices in the bios I disabled them in Device Manager. I got what appears to be a nice bump in SQ. Seems to have a blacker backround, more relaxed highs. Will give it a week or so of listening to be sure. Again, thanks Nick!

[PeterSt]

Okay, sorry about that. But at least I did not understand why you weren't seeing anything. But please combine it with my earlier post just about how you solved it : there's nothing to shut off - because not visible - when it's shut off in the BIOS. But I guess you didn't get that ? Not that it was layout *that* explicitly ...

Peter

[boleary]

But please combine it with my earlier post just about how you solved it : there's nothing to shut off - because not visible - when it's shut off in the BIOS. But I guess you didn't get that ?

Lets just say, for too many reasons to name, we over here are a bit slow, and at times, more so than others. 

Just reread the HPET timer thread; it looks like there will be some more significant tweeks coming our way....perhaps wrapped in a bow under the tree????

[PeterSt]

You can bet on that ...

[Nick]

Not sure why my last post here didn't get a response but that's okay, went to the doc and, despite what you may think, he said I don't have the coodies!

Brian hi,

Sorry for not posting a reply, I have had a touch of "man flu" this last week and spent days in bed .

Sounds like you found the right settings in device manager, pleased to hear that the results are sounding good. I have to say it was not what I was expecting when turning devices back on in bios.

The HPET timer tweak seems to work very well on our Asus mobos, well worth a play to see what you think.

Cheers,

Nick

[PeterSt]

I have to say it was not what I was expecting when turning devices back on in bios.

... and next Disabled them in Windows.
Correct ?

[boleary]

... and next Disabled them in Windows.
Correct ?

The answer better be yes. 

[Nick]

That's a yes guys,

Turned on in bios
Turned off in windows device mgr.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Scroobius]

Switching off in Windows gives good SQ here. Being able to switch the LAN on/off is very user friendly as I rip files on another PC and transfer over the network then switch the LAN off for listening.

Paul

[Nick]

I have a refinement to tweak number 4. It's absolutely dead simple but I just cannot understand the improvement to SQ it has made here.

This is tweak no 4,
4)   Remove power connections from DVD and Floppy Drives etc

The updates is as follows.

For these unused drives disconnect all SATA cables from the motherboard on each of the drives.

Some folks will already be doing this I guess but I wasn't. I was only removing the power connection to the drive to disable it and leaving the SATA cable of the unused drive connected to the Mobo. BIG mistake !

Usual caveats apply, it may not work on other mother board types / DACs and i am only using one HDD (eg no playback drive), but it's dead easy to try out. I really encourage you to give it a try just in case you get the surprising that this has given here this week 

Post back any findings.

Cheers,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Those connected SATA cables catching what ?

 

[Nick]

Those connected SATA cables catching what ?

 

Judging by the SQ before the SATAs were unplugged, BBC radio 1 I think 

(Possible noise is the reason that the "caveat" is there, but hope tweak to a tweak  works elsewhere)

[AlainGr]

My "all purpose" PC had an Intel ICHR9 controller on an ASUS Maximus Formule motherboard (bought in 2007).

I do have an external drive connected through Esata, that is internally connected to one of the internal 6 sata connections (in fact I have 2 of these connections).

I remember having problems when I was leaving the external drive connected while OFF, as if the controller was always asking "Who is there" and sending a signal to that connection.

Now when I don't use this external drive, I disconnect the Esata cable from its enclosure.

This may not occur on all motherboards, but if you try, like Nick says, you could have a nice surprise

Alain

[listening]

Surprise, surprise ...
Try to unplug your video plug   

Georg

[Nick]

Surprise, surprise ...
Try to unplug your video plug   

Georg

Georg hi,

I had been wondering if a KVM switch might be useful to allow the switched disconnection of the monitor whilst music playing.

Is there much of a difference when you unplug your monitor ?

Nick.

[listening]

Hi Nick,

it depends. I'm using a television set as PC monitor and the television is connected to cable television. Sometimes (not too unfrequent) I heard some noise in the highs. So I disconnected the VGA cable at the television set during playing music and these noises were gone. Two months ago I had to rearrange my electronics and it was necessary to disconnect the VGA cable from the PC. There is an additional benefit in terms of "free air". Maybe because there is an broadcast antenna not too far away from my home ...

Georg   

[boleary]

Very nice find Nick. I unplugged three SATA cables from the MB and had a really nice bump in SQ. Though subtle, the sound became cleaner and more focused. Will be an inconvenience when I want to rip music but it's definitely worth the bit of trouble.

[AlainGr]

May I suggest the eventuality of getting an external USB CD-DVD player ? It could overcome the disconnect/reconnect problem

Alain

[boleary]

Thanks Allen. I am a little hesitant to go that route cause my best sounding rips have been with my current set up. I guess we need a new topic on best external rippers. 

[AlainGr]

I understand. I was merely trying to find a way to overcome the inconvenience of having to open the case to reconnect a player...

But as long as one is happy with the tool of preference, that is more important than the convenience (or lack of) of course. We rip a CD for a long time (I hope)

Alain

[Nick]

Very nice find Nick. I unplugged three SATA cables from the MB and had a really nice bump in SQ. Though subtle, the sound became cleaner and more focused. Will be an inconvenience when I want to rip music but it's definitely worth the bit of trouble.

Brian hi,

Good news.

Sorry to send you back into you PC again but i just found that this is worth a go as well.

Try using a SATA 3 cable (the ones with clips on them that come with the mobo) then plug your HDD it into mobo "SATA 1". Look at the printing on the mobo by the SATA ports, SATA 1 is one of the grey ports, it is a 6gb port but it sould work fine with a SATA 2 or SATA 3 HDD. I think this tidies the sound just a little as well.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Gerard]

I understand. I was merely trying to find a way to overcome the inconvenience of having to open the case to reconnect a player...

But as long as one is happy with the tool of preference, that is more important than the convenience (or lack of) of course. We rip a CD for a long time (I hope)

Alain

What about a externe dvd writer\player?? I use that for a long time now.

Or do you think the quality is less with that?

 

[AlainGr]

I understand. I was merely trying to find a way to overcome the inconvenience of having to open the case to reconnect a player...

But as long as one is happy with the tool of preference, that is more important than the convenience (or lack of) of course. We rip a CD for a long time (I hope)

Alain

What about a externe dvd writer\player?? I use that for a long time now.

Or do you think the quality is less with that?

 

Hi Gerard

My guess is that the quality depends on the brand and/or player, but could also depend on the connection used. I am not sure about this. But I don't think that the internal/external would be the reason why a player would be better or worse.

I have a Plextor external player and one internal. 4 years ago, I was ripping with 4 players all working at the same time. I found that very useful then, but I am not sure I would do things that way again today...

Alain

[listening]

I'd like to share some hopefully interesting tweaks:

I have switched on HPET timer in BIOS a long time ago. Yesterday I read in different forums that W7 or W8 have not switched on HPET timer support normally.

- Open command window
- Enter "bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes"
- Reboot

(Use "no" if you like to switch back)

Additionally W8 allows to switch to a common hardware tick. Microsoft wrotes "Forces the clock to be backed by a platform source, no synthetic timers are allowed".

- Open command window
- Enter "bcdedit /set useplatformtick yes"
- Reboot

(Use "no" if you like to switch back)

I'm courious about your feedback 

Georg

[PeterSt]

Georg and all,

This is obtained in XXHighEnd already and through consistency with other settings. Manipulating these outboard is a. useless and b. confusing.
Btw, if you had looked at these both settings before you attempted changing them, you would have seen that they were already "set".

I could also ask you : And, did the placebo work ? (because already active) - haha.

Best regards (and thanks of course),
Peter