NOS1a and Q5 & W7 vs W8

[CoenP]

Hi there NOS1a owners,

Anybody notice a difference between Q5 set to 1 and set to 0?

(black wire connected and USB3 card connect to chassis)

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Hey Coen,

I'm afraid too few "a"'s are out there at the moment. But I have one, so I should be able to participate.
That is, if I survive another evening with Windows 7 (which you use), which is not likely because by now I HATE it.
I know I know ... this is another story. Anyway, I use W7 for the past 5 days or so (something forced me ) and if I still have it by the end of the day I will try it. However, you must placebo me first, because I don't like to waste even more time on this awful sound I receive myself from it.
I use Q5=3 which is fairly random (Q3 and Q4 at 0).

Of course you don't need to tell and possibly someone else comes up with some judgement after all, but I doubt it (I don't think others with the NOS1a use Windows 7).

Regards,
Peter

[CoenP]

Ok

Exaggerated emotional sound-experience: compressed vs bombastic. I definitely prefer the latter, a "live" sound. (Not saying which is wich).

Now with the nos1a maybe I should give win8 another try tonight...

Regards, Coen

P.s it should not matter, shouldn't it?

[PeterSt]

P.s it should not matter, shouldn't it?

No.

Re: Orelo MK-II Imaging

[CoenP]

Now with the nos1a maybe I should give win8 another try tonight...

Regards, Coen

P.s it should not matter, shouldn't it?

I forgot about the WIN8 quirks (like the stopping) and after some forum reading a few reboots and playing with the settings to get error free playback, I finally managed to play a couple of complete tracks!

Wow, what a laser beam focus...and how little height that beam has.  Actually, after a little accommodation I wondered where all my musical details had gone and where the naturalness and where the easiness, etc, etc. Why do I stop each track? What a total lack of listening enjoyment.
Ah, deja écoutée.

ASAP back to WIN 7 with its imperfections and now I hear Miles playing tunes on the trumpet again. What a beauty and relief!

Now what about Q5...

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

While thinking over what I wrote above, it occurred to me that the sound presentations of win7 and win 8 somehow make sense.

That is that one can think of a recording containing a certain intensity of the instruments.
Now if we "blow up (like a balloon)" this sound it would get less dense, bigger and vaguer but allowing for details to appear and develop: hence the WIN7 sound.

Otoh, if we would concentrate (in the vertical plane for arguments sake) this recording everything becomes very intense and clear with very good localization, but intense tones can get too intense and obscure nuances (and musical information is lost): hence the WIN8 sound.

At my place of course.

Of course I have no clue about why/how this take places, but the NOS1a is not immune to it.

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

You used the same machine for the both OSes ? So nothing else different regarding the noise environment ?

And uhm ... only when I was finihsed last night with playing music, I thought about your Q5. It can only mean I was happy enough with how it was now (also referring to my other post from yeterday). Anyway, apologies that I forgot.

Peter

[CoenP]

Hi Peter, same pc, same bios, same xx version, same devices disabled in the os device manager.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Thank you Coen.

[PeterSt]

So Coen, I tried it. But in an hour of time I couldn't find differences. I also tried the Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1 setting because that appears more logical to me to impact, but no.
SFS was 20, ClockRes was 15. Core 1-2 for the 8 core in there.

This wasn't critical listening, but I never do that. This can imply that I should have let it stay for a day at least, but now this won't work for me becaue of the (W7) sound I don't like much to begin with plus I am not used to it at all.

Regards,
Peter

[CoenP]

Thanks for the trouble Peter,

Things are very different in here with the Q5 settings. I must have some "leak" in my system that makes the PC and some software settings audible. Most likely not via the NOS1a but through something else; prime suspect is the pc.

I am still puzzled why you experience a difference between the two OSses and prefer win8 over win7.  From my perspective win8 sounds truely horrible.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

I am still puzzled why you experience a difference between the two OSses and prefer win8 over win7.  From my perspective win8 sounds truely horrible.

Coen, What about saying that the jury is still out ?
And please notice : Many if not most prefer Windows 8, so wondering how personal me can be out of line (or something ).

Are we going to change the subject ? hehe

Yesterday was my 8th day with Windows 7. On the first day my perception was "way more palpable". More smooth. No lack of accuracy that I noticed, because the palpable overwhelmed. But that really did not last a day before the grey took over. This ended up in last Saturday's "not listenable" any more. A next day this was counteracted by not playing the music which would show the nastyness. A next day I was fed up with that, but ended up by not even having the lust to look for a next album to play when the former was finished.
Then I found the new speaker settings;

The second day of that already made me think that I was able to quite mimic the W8 sound. One difference always to be there : the low end. There's no definition in it, but (therefore) sounds more low. This is acceptable for me, because when needed I'll dial out bass. Which I did not because the W7 is temporary for me.
Maybe.

Yesterday I could have gone back to W8 but I did not because I liked to try your Q5 thing. But merely : I knew in advance that I would not care much. Maybe I was even more interseted in whether I can survive W7 in general.
And again I noticed that the difference with W8 has vanished a lot.
It's a bit like LP; With W8 we can easily be wrong (too harsh because of too much accuracy or something like that) while W7 gives way more headroom. But there's a caveat and this could resemble your situation :

I know that you too can play with your speakers / crossovers what you want. You too may have set it all to some mere extremes others do not. So just think : While I have made my W7 acceptable by means of (strange) speaker settings, what would happen if *I* now go back to W8 ? I realy know the result in advance : all will be totally out of balance. Way less perceived bass (no matter more accurate) which is not able to mask to way too much highs. So both with work in the wrong direction and I will be there with ear plugs in.

If I try to map this on to your situation, then you must lower the tweeter output by some 3dB and what needs to happen with the bass I don't know. This is because I can survive both, but W7 feels like showing 4dB or so more of it. Point is, this masks the boosted tweeter for W7 and is thus dangerous (for proper judgement). Theoretically I (and you) could add 4dB of more bass when using W8 but this will not be for the better (because the bass in W7 is not for the better). Thus solution : lower the tweeter with 3dB.

I left out the 1K-5K attenuation (for W7) because you will not be able to do that.
And of course nothing is as easy as I say because you can not just "lower the tweeter". Still you can try (put a 5.6 Ohm or so resistor in series).

Today I will be back on W8. Well, I am curious myself.

Peter

[CoenP]

Thanks Peter,

I have been thinking about my speaker balance. The last time I voiced it was in my m-audio thuneau pre-xx days. It could very well be that that sound in retrospect was more similar to win7 than 8. I remember that even small changes in slope and co point made an enormous difference.

I am also not excluding the possibility of interaction between the PC psu and the psu(s) of the "power" amplifier. This is a very likely candidate both via the USB ground wire (wich is connected) and the ac power line.

I am encouraged in this line of reasoning since some of you notice far little difference between settings. It must be somewhere in my setup.

It takes a little thought how to properly tweak the low-mid-high outputs. There already is a negative slope from 12k downward and some dips and ups in the midrange,etc,etc. this is not a quicky!

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

Best would be to bring your car to this place at some stage. I owe you that one anyway.
At least that would sort out personal perception.

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

I have changed the title of the topic somewhat and included "& W7 vs W8".
I saw no good reason to start a separate topic for the W7 vs W8 thing with the notice that I wanted to start one myself about this a week ago, but all went a bit differently and now it automatically emerged in this topic.

Peter

[PeterSt]

Re: Orelo MK-II Imaging.

All right. I pinched my XXHighEnd PC together again yesterday and I started out with Windows 7 on it. Played an album of which I knew I did not play it often any more because "too difficult". Notice that this is about "too difficult" for W8. It is space-like synth stuff and no roar etc. would/will emerge in W8. Highs are too profound or something.

First off, I found no different perception under W7 than on my other W7 PC (with 13 disks attached to it and which can be regarded VERY noisy (also acoustically ). So I think the "machine" as a cause can be ruled out.
The album worked as intended (well, that is what I must assume) and I felt nothing much wrong with it. Do notice that I by now was rather used to the W7 sound, but with included "speaker tweaks". Also, I think if I had to survive with this forever, I could do it; maybe I wouldn't like all types of music for the best, but alas.

With this proof at hand that it is not the PC which matters, and also not forgetting that *I* personally can't imply differences with XXHighEnd settings, I finally went back to W8. And yes, I was more afraid that I would be disappointed than that I was looking forward to it after these 8-9 days of "struggle". The palpability of W8 has something and as said earlier, it can come across like LP (in comparison with W8).

So there I went ...

In 45 minutes of time I was not able to let that same album sound decent by any means; It was now cold, sterile, no roar anywhere and there we go again : made by robots.
D*mn.
Tried all the speaker settings I could think of, but nothing satisfied. Strangely enough the W7 settings satiesfied best.
And so, if we look at this (album) I must give Coen all the right in the world, because there's no comparison and W8 is awful. Still though, all I heard from the bass was infinitely better. There was no deep from down earth umphf boiling up, but eatch same from deep down earth hits had an attack, envelope and decay. So what do we want guys, perceive one big down earth umphf, or hear what the instrument really is about ? And again : d*mn it ! it has to be about the latter !

But this was such an album (but by now quite rare) of which I knew it didn't work any more since W8. So let's behave normal and play the stuff which "works".

First notice : all the flavours have gone. Read : W7 is one big pile of deep down earth flavour, with a sauce of grey on it on top. Interesting and it could sell, but even me should get annoyed by it after some time, never mind I just told I got used to it.

Further notice after playing somewhat longer (say two hours) :
All is so "normal" because natural. I supposed this is all related to the grey now lacking and the accuracy in place of it. I even forgot that cymbals could sound nice and interesting, because with W7 they're just not there (envision how grey mushes them into deep down earth nothing ).
A more strange thing is that again an hour further I could not imagine how this can ever go wrong. So, the W7/LP idea actually, but now 10 times emhasized. How contraditionary ...
Still there are those albums which will not work, but as far as I can recall they are always this synth sh*t. So let them be.

Or ?

It is very very dangerous to let such thing be. I mean, one of the worst regarding W8 robotics has been Vangelis' The Friends of Mr Cairo. More light than light weight and all completely nasty. This improved over (XXHighEnd) time, but with the NOS1a this went totally normal. Really so and all the examples I had which were so without ANY bass, now work (Heaven 17 is also a nice example). Many synth stuff - same story. But still not all.

So must I go back to W7 because of this handful not working in order to let 1000s not work optimally ?
No. I refuse.
I better sit down and work out the frequencies where W7 behaves totally different from W8. That seems doable to me. Next I will be able to tune the speakers for where W7 is the better one and apply that to W8, Mind you, if so at all.
But is such a thing useful to you out there ? No, to most it is not of course.

So I don't know what to do about it. I feel that W8 can be improved upon but at this moment I don't know how. I *know* that W7 is all over for the worse only and that plain distortion masks the robotic accuracy of W8. I personally can not proceed that route. Distortion is just that and it should not be the way to go.

More interesting of course is : how can it ever be. It shouldn't exist but it does. Bit perfect = just that for both. Well, we have talked about this (way) more often. Both just can-not be the same. Also, I don't know what actually happened that the difference is now so enormous (I am not exaggerating), which should only be because the DAC is again better in reproducing what it's offered; before we may not like the one over the other, but this is really out of space. If I only take my drumming recording and observe how that is TOTALLY messed up in W7, then what ?

Side note because it hardly has been a subject in here :
W8.1 too was like a drag; I now thus have no reasons to believe that that suddenly changed (with the NOS1a). But I can fairly easily try it. Who knows ... it can be in between W8 and W7 ...

All I can reall say is
But we do this for over 18 months already (W8/W7).

Peter

[fralippo]

Yes, please try W8.1 and report.

[PeterSt]

Please notice : I already have tried W8.1 and it totally s*cks. No need to try that again for you.
What can be different now though, is how it sounds through the NOS1a.

Of course I was not clear about that much, and it requires the "knowledge" of this (my) judgement in the first place (maybe 7 months or so ago).

I will do it anyway, but just in case it works out for the better over here ... for you it will be for the worse. I mean, nothing changed !
But ask away when it is not clear, ok ?

Regards,
Peter

[manisandher]

So I don't know what to do about it. I feel that W8 can be improved upon but at this moment I don't know how.

Hey Peter, try taking hyperthreading OFF with W8. In my setup, this brings the LF back up quite a bit and tends to smooth the sound overall. (I'm using processor scheme 'Core 3-5' with a 6-core CPU.)

Don't over-think this one... just try it!

Mani.

[esimms86]

So I understand that the PC's processing power matters, being able to upsample with XXHE matters and filters matter, but I thought that, otherwise, the NOS1a was immune to software settings. It looks like that is not the case?

Esau

[PeterSt]

Hey Peter, try taking hyperthreading OFF with W8. In my setup, this brings the LF back up quite a bit and tends to smooth the sound overall. (I'm using processor scheme 'Core 3-5' with a 6-core CPU.)

Thank you Mani. But I don't think this can go "just like that". So look at my sig (W8 part) ans see the XTweaks settings. Those are still mine, and I am pretty sure I can't let stay them like that when switching off Hyperthreading. So what were yours and what are yours ?

Cheers,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Hi Esau,

So I understand that the PC's processing power matters, being able to upsample with XXHE matters and filters matter, but I thought that, otherwise, the NOS1a was immune to software settings. It looks like that is not the case?

I yet have the first change to see (hear). But let's say that indications exist which now show how things come in from the back door (mains). Let's just recap what I all had to do to let W8 perform : remove all switching power supplies.

This is not an easy task if you incorporate the PC itself and envision all sorts of devices connected to it, including USB disks with SMPSes into the wall somewhere. Long story short, for me this resulted in :

- No such devices attached to the audio PC (watch the monitor !);
- The audio PC only containing a small OS disk and nothing else (but a USB connection to the NOS1);
- That audio PC in the same mains ring as the audio gear;
- A "Server" PC containing 12 music disks, including USB connected, that PC connected by means of a LAN cable to the audio PC;
- That "Server" PC also connected to the same mains ring;
- All the USB disks etc. SMPSes in a normal house ring.

The latter two are logically wrong because
a. The disks etc. connect to another ring with different ground potential;
b. USB (etc.) most 99.99% probably not isolating, so again I was connecting 2 mains rings (for PE hence different ground potential);
c. That "Server" PC does not need to be in the audio ring - but it just was.

Ad c.
The LAN connection between the two PC's *IS* isolating.

Crucial side note : The W7 I was using the past week was that "Server" PC, while I did not perceive any difference with the W7 on the Audio PC. This can be summarized to a most noisy "Server" PC compared to a completely lean audio PC, both sounding exactly the same for W7.
Still I have the clear experience that the audio PC had to be made that lean in order to let W8 perform.
Let's keep in mind : This has all been in the realm of the USB connection from audio PC to DAC because it was the most logical path to think about. And maybe it was or maybe it was partly. We can not say "not at all" because of the huge difference accomplished with the now isolated NOS1a which also is clearly measurable (jitter).

That all said, yesterday I finally moved the "Server" PC to the basement (a task I should have done 10 years ago because the house was explicitly made for that), where I moved ALL the mains connections to a normal house ring. So the whole lot of PC itself plus USB disks etc., now is in one house ring, while the audio PC is in the audio ring with nothing else but the OS disk in there, and just saying : the monitor not even connected to it, which also is crucial (so I access it through RDP). The LAN cable connect the two PC's, and this is isolated.

Result : Way better again.

Now, those who can follow, can see that this is not anywhere related to the USB connection; nothing changed there. All I did was separating the audio ring from the house ring better (or fully now if all is correct) and *that* thus does a few things.

What it does is very indirect because all it *can* have done is providing a better mains to the audio gear (DAC + amps). And well, now we are in an area which is vague to begin with.

Still there ?
When any "Server" PC can molest the mains as a whole for the audio gear because connected, this just as well works the other way around : the audio PC molesting that same mains as a whole because connected. I deliberately say "connected" and not "connected to ..." because we must try to derive that from my text above and it can be different for everybody. But point is : without notice we connect two rings and whether the one element influences the one ring and the other element the other, it is about the result of both which is the same because ... connected. The influence may not be as impacting of either, but the result ends up in the audio ring.

This is of course when we *have* two rings, but let's say that most do already by means of filters, isolation transformers etc. etc. And, might you put really all the (also switching) supplies in the one ring you use for audio, then the result is also bad (because all switching supplies just are).

So what did I all say ?
That I used the "Server" PC to influence SQ via the mains, and that I see no reason why the audio PC wouldn't be able to do the same - via the mains. Whether the latter is still possible through the fragile XXHighEnd settings - I did not hear a thing of that yet, but with the notice that I already did quite OK with the separation of the rings (which you wouldn't say after reading this post, haha).

Peter

PS: Please don't blame me for showing some enthusiasm for the path of "tweaking is still possible". I keep on feeling a quite dead hobby without it. Also it won't be a coincidence that I just now finally made this move, meant to be for 10 years ago. When nothing else is to be done ...

[CoenP]

Hi Peter,

The importance of these "tweaks" cannot be underestimated and I did not take serious notice about them being crucial to win 8. I realize that there is a lot of work to do on my suppy lines after reading your last post. In other rooms for instance there are SMPSs connected to my audio ring. Also I can improve upon PC leanness by moving disks to a server and the disabling the monitor.

Still it is very possible that the audio PC, which has an SMPS which causes hard to kill HF on the line, influences the power amps.

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Still it is very possible that the audio PC, which has an SMPS which causes hard to kill HF on the line, influences the power amps.

Sure Coen. And the more we can proove that this sh*t matters, the more the one remaining (that of the audio PC) will become profound (compared to when it would not be there).

Peter

[CoenP]

Sure Coen. And the more we can proove that this sh*t matters, the more the one remaining (that of the audio PC) will become profound (compared to when it would not be there).

If we assume the USB link between pc and DAC is sufficiently isolated wrt noise, only the PC "contamination" of the powerline remains including the hypothetical win 7 and win 8 "signatures". Imho this can be dealt with by a fat battery pack and an inverter or better some DC-DC converters that power the PC directly. I'd rather put the audio PC on batteries than either the DAC or amplifier. Along the road I've looked at this several times, it shouldn't be hard to do, my PC is consuming less than 50 watt at all times.

Did you do something special to isolate the LAN of the server pc or is it standard Ethernet practice?

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Is standard Ethernet practice.

If we assume the USB link between pc and DAC is sufficiently isolated wrt noise, only the PC "contamination" of the powerline remains including the hypothetical win 7 and win 8 "signatures". Imho this can be dealt with by a fat battery pack [...]

No. If it would be the OS implying now the mains noise differences, all the XXHighEnd dials previously implying clear differences would still do that. But they don't.
So see ? This might be the case with you (with good reasons for it) but here not, or not perceivable by me, while the difference between W7 and W8 is out of space.

So something doesn't match up and the only thing I can think of (but it apporoaches two years that I am saying this) is that both are not "bit perfect" at the point in the chain where they should be. Which is at the end of the USB cable, so to speak.
But seriously, things get too complicated. Or let's say that I don't have sufficient time for it all, like setting up the measurements, learn what to look at, how to interpret it and what I don't think of at the moment.

Complicated ? ... First we (or me) think that W8 is totally out of order and W7 is very OK, and a year further and a LOT of tweaking (XXHIghEnd software plus mains stuff) ... and almost without notice ... now I think the exact other way around ?
It must be me myself out of order.
And Coen, remembering about your "off and on" with W7 ... didn't we all have the same one day OK, next day pure sh*t with W8 while nobody complained about that with W7 ? Well, if I observed correctly even that now happens to me with W7. One day OK, next day unlistenable. This while W8 is super stable now here regarding to that.
So that too exchanged position, as it seems.

In itself it is a good thing to think (or know) that the DAC isolation is in order, which removes quite a lot (at first I thought all) out of the equation. But I can't really say it became more easy thinking because of that because now we must try to find the means how for example your Q5 makes a difference. If you are correct on it of course, which I for now must assume. Mani's idea not different.
And Yes, *that* should be able to be counteracted with mains isolation but FIRST please arrange for the things I layed out (I am sounding like a wise guy, but 24 hours ago I didn't do that well myself).

At least it gives us something to do.
It would be nice that this "to do" is detected by means we can apply to learn that it only gets worse, like in my case (I am really satisfied). Anyway, say this is part of my job and I hope I can learn from that in order to help people like you, Coen, who can get really annoyed by the need "to do" because otherwise sound is poor. Still it would be my advice to start doing things with W8 in order, because while thinking I have all quite OK over here, W7 shows the annoyance all over (and all is still as OK of course). So I think it is the better path.
Meanwhile - and just a hunch - find yourself a longer USB cable and move away your NOS1a as far as possible from the other audio gear. If that changes things, move it back with the same cable so you'll know it's not that.

Peter

[CoenP]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for thinking along. First things first of course, and those can be done at any time!

I might be back on the forum for the RDC which I never put to work (got the dongels though).

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen, just use WiFi. No need to use Bluetooth with the NOS1a.
Says me.

[CoenP]

Coen, just use WiFi. No need to use Bluetooth with the NOS1a.
Says me.

Just to be shure: that is wifi to the access point router and then via the LAN to the music PC or does it assume a server PC that is not part of the LAN? I guess Wifi dongels do not fit in the minimal audio PC setup...

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Correct.

But before you ask, derived from my previous post(s) today :

I coincidentally control the "Server" by it, that one communicating with the audio PC. Actually the same procedure as proposed with Bluetooth but now for another reason. So :

Tablet (RDP) -> WiFi -> Access Point -> Router -> LAN -> Server PC (RDP) -> Direct LAN between Server PC and audio PC.

The coincidence here is that I use the LAN the other way around : Audio PC must get the music from somewhere. This is form the "Server" PC. This is through direct LAN connection (crossed cable).
Since this connection is there anyway, I can now use the "Server" PC to remotely control the audio PC.

Thus, RDP on tablet remotely controls the Server PC, while that one itself remotely controls the Audio PC. So I (on tablet) take over the screen from a PC which takes over the screen of the audio PC.
The advantage of this could be that now really never the monitor of the audio PC is needed because I use that other ("Server") PC for that. Meanwhile I can use the tablet whenever I want.
Would the tablet connect directly to the audio PC, then I couldn't do all on the tablet or at least not in convenient fashion (just think general maintenance stuff).
Also and actually the same : Many people will work with RDP already, from a laptop or other desktop PC, to control the audio PC. So what people should do is just remotey control that laptop/other desktop.

It's not even counter-intuitive, but still not the first thought - I suppose ...

Peter


PS: So I should finally take out the video card from the audio PC (the whole PC consumes 49W at this moment, during playback).

[CoenP]

Ok, so the daisy chaining of rdcs is documented on this forum?

PS: So I should finally take out the video card from the audio PC (the whole PC consumes 49W at this moment, during playback).

This will shave off another 10 watts. The e series don't have a gpu do they? In my case the bios will default to the igp, don't know if it will be for the better...

Regards, Coen

[manisandher]

Those are still mine, and I am pretty sure I can't let stay them like that when switching off Hyperthreading. So what were yours and what are yours ?

Actually mine are identical to yours (my sig was out of date and stated nervousness =30 and not =1 as it really is). No issues here with hyperthreading on or off - everything works fine (and this is without a RAMdisc, which I haven't used for quite a while now because I haven't got around to reinstating it yet).

FWIW, I actually prefer the sound of hyperthreading ON. It's a cleaner sound, and the bass is more tuneful. But if anyone finds W8 too clinical-sounding, hyperthreading OFF will probably cure this. It's not to my liking but might well be to others' liking.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Thank you Mani. Loud and clear.

Peter

[CoenP]

After some moderately succesfull powerplug reorganisation I managed to get the RDC thing going, with much less fuzz than expected.

Both pcs have a gigabit ethernet port so no crossover cable was necessary. Fortunately I have the win8 pro version for the music PC so enabeling RDC access was a matter of a couple of clicks (in maximised OS to have all network services available). Setting up RDC on the "server" win7 (atom) PC worked in one go, unbelievable  .

Because this worked so well I unplugged the KVM connectors from the audio PC.

Now at first it sounded like the regular win8 sh*t, only worse, but booting back into min OS seemed to be the magic bullet.
I cannot believe it myself but I think I hear actually music being played by win8. For the first time in this room. To be shure I am not fooling myself I will let it play for a couple of days and see if I am still percieving this.

Now the next thing on the plan is to strip the music PC. That will include transferring the music Disks to the server pc and play the tunes from there. Now I wondered how to make the connection from the audio pc to the server. Do I really need the LAN services in min OS for that?

Regards, Coen

[AlainGr]

Hi Coen,

I have my all purpose PC with my external music hard drive connected to it with Esata. My all purpose PC is with W7 pro 64.
The all purpose PC is connected with the music PC with an ethernet cable (1gbit for the two of them). The music PC is with W8 pro 64.
My all purpose PC allows me to go on internet with an added  wireless USB network card.
Like you I connect on the music PC through RDC. The music PC has no monitor, keyboard nor mouse connected to it. I simply turn it on then I do all through the all purpose PC.
When you are in normal OS mode, you mention that you want to keep the LAN on but it has to be "non persistent".
Then you go back in minimize OS after.

I use a ramdisk on the music PC

Hope this help

Regards,

Alain
PS: I am not sure if having two network cards on the all purpose PC could complicate things for the connection between the 2 PCs. I did something additional to prevent this, but I suggest that you try first to see if it works for you. If not, please say so ok ?

[CoenP]

Hi Alian,

Thanks for the response.

I have my all purpose PC with my external music hard drive connected to it with Esata. My all purpose PC is with W7 pro 64.
The all purpose PC is connected with the music PC with an ethernet cable (1gbit for the two of them). The music PC is with W8 pro 64.

This is exactly how I have set it up now.

My all purpose PC allows me to go on internet with an added  wireless USB network card.

This is also the not executed plan, but:

PS: I am not sure if having two network cards on the all purpose PC could complicate things for the connection between the 2 PCs. I did something additional to prevent this, but I suggest that you try first to see if it works for you. If not, please say so ok ?

This is also my concern. Who will be issuing the IP numbers? This is of lower priority, for now I don't really need the internet and music will be local to the win 7 " host".

Like you I connect on the music PC through RDC. The music PC has no monitor, keyboard nor mouse connected to it. I simply turn it on then I do all through the all purpose PC.

This seems to be a distinct advantage for SQ in win8. SQ wise the music started to flow but overall it is not on par with win 7 yet.

When you are in normal OS mode, you mention that you want to keep the LAN on but it has to be "non persistent".
Then you go back in minimize OS after.

I use a ramdisk on the music PC

So: keep Lan services "on" and Persist "off".

Because of the RAMdisk you do not need the LAN when playing?


regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

Because of the RAMdisk you do not need the LAN when playing?

Not the RAMDisk in particular, but any Playback Drive (when not in the LAN ).
But generally Yes.

Also though : This is not related any more for the NOS1a as far as I can tell because you can just leave on the LAN in general (so Keep LAN Services - Persist).
Uhm, saying this, I don't see how it can go otherwise anyway with RDC. So or I read wrongly, or something was said wrongly; With RDC the LAN is not allowed to drop at any time, or you won't be able to reconnect after a first nice play session).
Edit : But I think I see where the miscommunication is : Persist does not do anything when Keep LAN is in order.

Peter

[CoenP]

I realize I've been careless with this. Keep Lan is Unchecked, I did however not play unattended and made a connection with the IP address of the music PC.

If I read the "persist" button tooltip correctly XX will bring up the LAN again after unattended playing when it is checked...

When the LAN services are present, XX can collect the files from a shared directory on the "server PC" right?

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

Not really responding to yout post(s) :

The LAN thing (including that ToolTip you read) has been setup for operation *outside* of using Remote Desktop (RDC/RDP). This, while there's also a button for RDC;

It is to be regarded that when RDC is used, not only the button for that needs to be active, but also the LAN is to be On all the time.

To understand the button for RDC : This again *adds* services, and is thus detrimental for normal NOS1.
Thus, using the LAN (all the time or not) is one thing, and using RDC is another. But when using RDC (I think) the LAN can be shut off in the program, while nothing prevents you from making that combination (but RDC won't come up after playback).

Got that ?
If so, the reason for this combination allowed is because the RDC thing has been setup for the PAN usage (Bluetooth). And *now* things start to be different, because the PAN consumes way less than the LAN.

I suppose it is hard to make clear, but while the same set of settings combinations allow the same for LAN and RDC, this is a coincidence; nothing was made for that explicitly (but it works).

For the NOS1a there's more, like not even shutting off the Desktop Services (and thus Remaining Services) once being in MinOS Mode (only then !), which suddenly allows the Wallpaper to be operative, which it otherwise is not in Windows 8 (but don't use Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1 or oterwise the Wallpaper again doesn't work).

blablabla
Peter

[CoenP]

Got that ?

check!

blablabla
Peter

Thanks,

recap: the running services matter less for the 1a so we can have a better experience without the SQ penalty.

Excellent!

regards, Coen

[AlainGr]

Hi Coen,

Sorry if I could not answer earlier to your other questions (different timezone), but Peter has the best answers

Regards,

Alain (or Alian)

[CoenP]

Thanks Alain,

a small update:

Last evening I managed to connect the computers on the LAN and played some tunes on the win8 music PC from an internal and an external HDD on the "server" PC.

SQ was not very satisfying though. Naturalness: mwah, details/refinement: mwah, instrumental colors: mwah. I know the 1a can do better, much better. It was also VERY sensitive to parameter changes. Changing the core scheme form 2-3 to 1-2 for instance rendered the sound brittle and nervous. On the positive side this indicates tweaking potential but is is not what we would expect from the 1a.
Otoh I still have to scrutinize the smpsses in adjacent rooms that are on the same power circuit and put the USB " isolation" back in place. So on the hardware side of things I have work to do.

All in all another bumpy road with win8 and hopefully not to nowhere.

regards, Coen

FWIW: I briefly connected the 1a to my MacBookPro and played via Audirvana+1.5.10. This sounded very natural and musical, but with a floppy bass and to much echoes. Now, this sound has some crucial elements of my target sound: if we just could add the xxhe bass and realistic macro and micro dynamics...

[PeterSt]

Coen, this could be superfluous :

Do not take it for granted that the XXHighEnd software can change the sound. You seem to have adopted that idea by now.
Of course ... in your case it does. But it means that you (we) need to sit back and think what could be causing this.

Not much helpful, I know ...
Peter

[CoenP]

Coen, this could be superfluous :

Do not take it for granted that the XXHighEnd software can change the sound. You seem to have adopted that idea by now.
Of course ... in your case it does. But it means that you (we) need to sit back and think what could be causing this.

Not much helpful, I know ...
Peter

Hi Peter,

Like you say, I consider the mere fact that I percieve clear changes by changing xx settings indicative of something that is not right in my system. Not that it is the cause. Another is the struggle I have with win8 to sound good like most posters on the forum.
Something present or lacking or bloody obvious is escaping me each time .

Now the RDC has allready brought something unexpected, but the pc might very well be still the culprit. It may (not) contain a component that is crucial to the solution. First I aim to get closer to a setup that mimics yours.

Regards, Coen

[mod] updated forume profile with more detailed pc specs.

[Mamba315]

FWIW: I briefly connected the 1a to my MacBookPro and played via Audirvana+1.5.10.

Do you get sound in both channels with the 1a and Audirvana?  I gave it a try and only one channel would play.  I'm guessing this is due to the old driver

[CoenP]

Hi,

Not the driver, just set the button closed to the NOS1 middlepart to off. This has to do with the 4channel trick that is needed for 16x bitrates (on).

Regards, Coen

P.s it is mentioned in the button explanation in the manual

[Mamba315]

You're right of course, with the switch back up I have both channels playing. 

[PeterSt]

Re: Orelo MK-II Imaging.So must I go back to W7 because of this handful not working in order to let 1000s not work optimally ?
No. I refuse.
I better sit down and work out the frequencies where W7 behaves totally different from W8. That seems doable to me. Next I will be able to tune the speakers for where W7 is the better one and apply that to W8, Mind you, if so at all.

Done.

And you won't believe the story ...

[CoenP]

Waiting for a long post!

Regards, Coen

[manisandher]

+1...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Re: Orelo MK-II Imaging.So must I go back to W7 because of this handful not working in order to let 1000s not work optimally ?
No. I refuse.
I better sit down and work out the frequencies where W7 behaves totally different from W8. That seems doable to me. Next I will be able to tune the speakers for where W7 is the better one and apply that to W8, Mind you, if so at all.

Done.

And you won't believe the story ...

Or maybe you do.

Let's start with me telling that I always wondered why the speaker needed a "notch" at ~90Hz. But, it needed it (to present a straight line performance) and so I applied it. However, it was in my mind that it could be a room anomaly, never mind I measure from very close (like 2cm).

So for a few weeks already I was tempted to remove this notch in order to see whether I'd receive a coloured sound from it, or whether it maybe would be for the better. And, after playing with Windows 7 for a week and perceiving the more deep down from earth bass - and after going back to Windows 8 that deep down being gone again, three days ago I finally did it.

Here you see that notch and this thus went out.

Within a second it was clear to me : Windows 7 bass was back.
Well, not for all its aspects (W8 bass is better) but the deep down earth was there.

Aha.

And maybe in the next 10 seconds I knew what has been going on, and it is almost too stupid to put into words, but still ... how to think of such a thing. OK, I didn't.

What I have been saying for about ever, is that it is actually impossible to tune for example speakers through measurement means which are different from what we actually use for playback. Do I need to explain this ? I hope not, because it should be quite clear that if an XXHighEnd dial is able to bring us better bass or anything, that dial will not be present in official measurement means (that doesn't play XXHighEnd ) and so ... what will we be doing when utilizing such means.

So I was smart and I did NOT;
I used XXHighEnd for it and just played the test tones through that.
Not that I thought of using special "good SQ" settings ...

Let's say I have been in dual mode, because from one side I know that such settings make a difference, but from the other I also know they are not measurable.
Uhm ...

Small intermezzo to setup some tense :
We are currently with 6 if I count in Bert who applies similar to the Big Orelo. 5 of us tend to "complain" about very maybe wanting some more LF output. Notice that it is allowed to include me after comparing to W7. But also notice that there's one amongst us who doesn't complain at all. Actually the other way around - he's the only person who deemed it necessary to move the speakers more out of the corner. And he uses Windows 7. Me too found the LF to buzz too much, and me too had the idea that the speakers could use some more "out of the corners". But I never payed attention to it really because my W7 situation was temporary.

So what is the common sense here ?

Like I said, almost too stupid to put into words, but ALSO, I'm sure, no speaker builder with his best ideas of it all will think about it ...

Don't tune your speaker on a Windows 7 machine while intended use is on Windows 8.

Yep. So logical, once we start using our brains somewhat.

So that is what I did; Using my W7 machine containing all the sh*t for whatever work, and it includes the DSP software. And the recording hardware and drivers and all needed to do this. Of course I am not going to load my W8 audio PC with that.
Of course not.
But I should have.

Without me realizing it really back at the time(s), below you see how the Orelino was tuned. Mind you, although the design in the basics is rather the same, the drivers are totally different. Please notice that although the MKII was tuned later than the Orelino, the MKII was tuned from scratch, and no Orelino (DSP) base was used. Here :

Same thing ? You can say so yes. There's a small difference in the peak frequency and also the range is smaller, but with the notice that this has been for myself only and wasn't setup in as much detail I applied for the MKII which was "for you". But you can bet I would have come to the "more same" when I had payed as much attention (and no exact 90Hz would have been used, to name something).
Anyway, same thing.
So :

Done.

Yes, with the big fun that I already had it done without me realizing it. So, assumed it is W7 which needs this while W8 does not need this, this is the difference for W7 against W8 in the LF area.
Please notice that this now has been determined audibly and that it is of course no real science that I myself judge W8 (without the notch) to sound the same now as W7 (with the notch).

For me this does not imply a buzz like W7 shows it, so I am the most happy with this. I suddenly found the best of both worlds ... The bass quality in optima forma, with the highs quality W7 never will show. The both combined makes the more profound highs more soft in the mean time.

Nice.

Nice, but how can it help people not being able to tune their speakers like Orelo MKII (and due Orelino) owners can ?
I really don't know in what direction to talk;
Highs should be way more profound from these mid-high horns to begin with, while bass is also way more profound to begin with. Fact seems to be that Windows 8 needs a boost of similar shape and position you see from the notch I had to apply. Don't ask me what reality is. I mean, when I had tuned the speaker(s) under Windows 8 that notch would not have been there and Windows 7 would have been deep down earth exploding; we know how much 2.5dB means for the low frequencies ... way much. And my W7 already showed a tad too much of it, let alone that 2.5dB could be added (I didn't try for listening).
It also won't be true that most people suffer from too much bass under W7, BUT, there are a few who can tune their speakers similarly, amongst them Coen who can't survive W8.

If the latter would be a measure then W8 must be the mere reality and those used to W7 should encounter a better bass quality in W8 (plus less grey in the highs).
And so, if this is correct both people like Coen and the MKII owners suffer from similar under W8 - too few bass output around that 90Hz region. They all tuned their speaker for Windows 7 ...

I hope this made some sense. But of course it was quite a revelation that I announced to be able to find the difference between W7 and W8 by means of measurement, while I actually already did.
Stupid stuff ...

Peter

[manisandher]

I've just run a series of 1/3 octave band tracks (ripped from the MFSL 'Soundcheck' CD), from 20Hz up to 20KHz. It's clear that there is a 'suck-out' between ~40Hz and ~80Hz in my room. I've never noticed this before. The 20Hz, 25Hz and 31.5Hz tracks show plenty of energy (the 20Hz can hardly be heard, but it definitely energizes the room). There is a significant drop in energy on the 40Hz, 50Hz, 60Hz and 80Hz tracks. The energy starts returning on the 100Hz track.

Hey Peter, my comment here obviously didn't trigger your memory of applying the filter7 notch. Oh well...

Let's start with me telling that I always wondered why the speaker needed a "notch" at ~90Hz. But, it needed it (to present a straight line performance) and so I applied it.

I've just applied the Unity setting to filter7, and indeed the LF is much, much better. Nice 'tweak'.

However... over here, I'm still missing the really low-LF stuff. I've only tried a few tracks though, and it could well be that these simply have no real low-LF to begin with. (Or it could be that I really need to get the NOS1a and PC back in the main room and use short ICs.)

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hi Mani,

You :

It's clear that there is a 'suck-out' between ~40Hz and ~80Hz in my room.

Me :

Let's start with me telling that I always wondered why the speaker needed a "notch" at ~90Hz.

You :

my comment here obviously didn't trigger your memory of applying the filter7 notch.

Eh ... no, not really. I wouldn't know how my memory had to work either.
You ?

haha

Peter

[manisandher]

Yeah, my description of the suck-out wasn't very good. In my mind I had the impression of a gentle downwards slope starting ~40-50Hz, peaking ~80KHz [Edit: I meant 80Hz, of course], and then coming back up from 100Hz onwards.

Hey, not bad considering I was using widely-spaced discrete test tones and only my ears! (I really need to get hold of a calibrated test microphone, Earthworks or something, at some point.)

Anyway, the LF is now much better. But I still need to work on the extreme-LF... I need more!

Mani.

[christoffe]

Yeah, my description of the suck-out wasn't very good. In my mind I had the impression of a gentle downwards slope starting ~40-50Hz, peaking ~80KHz, and then coming back up from 100Hz onwards.

Hey, not bad considering I was using widely-spaced discrete test tones and only my ears! (I really need to get hold of a calibrated test microphone, Earthworks or something, at some point.)

Anyway, the LF is now much better. But I still need to work on the extreme-LF... I need more!

Mani.

Hi,

Keyword: nodes Modes

this article explains something.

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/listening-room-acoustics-1

Joachim

[PeterSt]

Joachim - Article-man ...

That looks very decent to me. Thank you for sharing.

Best regards,
Peter

[acg]

Peter, I am having a serious wtf moment reading this. 

You are saying that w7 has a 2.5dB 'lump' in the frequency response at 90Hz that is not present in w8...am I reading that right?  How does this happen?  Surely Microsoft would have noticed this.  Surely someone else would have noticed this.

I can't even figure out the mechanics of how this is possible let alone why Microsoft have left it un-resolved (although something seems to have been done for w8.

This all makes me wonder why w8.1 could not be made to sound good.

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Surely someone else would have noticed this.

Anthony, then you go claim that both sound the same ?

Otherwise you ask rhetorical questions with the most obvious answer that I don't know (and I am saying that from the start of W8 - there HAS to be a difference and I don't know where it can be, but at least I think I am one step further now).

On a side note (or not) what always puzzled me is that AmirM (former lead developer of Vista Audio Team) was asked the question (WBF through Mani) and he didn't even respond. Why ?

But the most logical is it has to be in "USB" somewhere. At least from that I can reason that a digital loop-back (to check bit perfectness) not necessairly travels the same path as when we go to a DAC. This is all driver stuff with also the notice that W8 is totally different here than W7 (with btw "solutions" in 8.1), and OS/X being even more of a mess.
IOW you don't know what (audio) driver developers all have to do in order to let USB work decently; it's completely tweaked by now (OS/X worse than W8).

What's a bit new is that I'll receive a new library for the driver which in my opinion can solve the stopping of W8 after 10.x minutes, which some people still suffer from. The message : It can happen that W8 forgets to ask for a new (audio) package, so the PC actually doesn't send it and sound stops.
Notice this is a derival from other issues solved in this library and whether it really solves that problem is to see, but it is (hopefully) a clear example for you.

Peter

[CoenP]

Hi Peter,

Who'd thought about a midbass bump in win7 accounting for most of the difference in sound. Certainly not me, I had to read your post a couple of times to be certain win7 and 8 weren't reversed. I think win8 is here allready a little on the thick side in de midbass (and yes no feeling/suggestion of abyssal bass like in win7 too) and win7 just a tiny tad too thin...

In the mean time I've been moving some stuff around while listening to the macbook on the NOS1a. A music pc on batteries so to speak with a fantastic dac. I think this concept works dispite os-x not being entirely highendaudio friendly and the common ringing FIR filters you are limited to. Notable was how of lttle influence the enabeling/disabeling of the wifi was in this setup. With my iFi dac there is a great difference (on the headphone). Not shure what this actually means for the difference in windows between OSses, but it is mighty convenient for streaming. Whatever.

Back to the "serious" listening attempts: win8 is as hard to catch as an eel. One step forward and at the same time one step back. The worst thing of all: natural is the one word I wouldn't use for any of the outcomes yet. +2,5dB wouldn't change this either (I think). Bleh.

Regards, Coen

[CoenP]

What's a bit new is that I'll receive a new library for the driver which in my opinion can solve the stopping of W8 after 10.x minutes, which some people still suffer from. The message : It can happen that W8 forgets to ask for a new (audio) package, so the PC actually doesn't send it and sound stops.
Notice this is a derival from other issues solved in this library and whether it really solves that problem is to see, but it is (hopefully) a clear example for you.

Interesting to know if the driver update solutions also impact sound quality. This is win8 only? I have not experienced any stops after the pagefile/reboot tricks.

Regards, Coen

[christoffe]

What's a bit new is that I'll receive a new library for the driver which in my opinion can solve the stopping of W8 after 10.x minutes, which some people still suffer from. The message : It can happen that W8 forgets to ask for a new (audio) package, so the PC actually doesn't send it and sound stops.
Notice this is a derival from other issues solved in this library and whether it really solves that problem is to see, but it is (hopefully) a clear example for you.

Interesting to know if the driver update solutions also impact sound quality. This is win8 only? I have not experienced any stops after the pagefile/reboot tricks.

Regards, Coen

I do have this problem (stopping after 10. min) when moving the "Playback Drive" to a RAMdisc.

Joachim

[PeterSt]

What's a bit new is that I'll receive a new library for the driver which in my opinion can solve the stopping of W8 after 10.x minutes, which some people still suffer from. The message : It can happen that W8 forgets to ask for a new (audio) package, so the PC actually doesn't send it and sound stops.
Notice this is a derival from other issues solved in this library and whether it really solves that problem is to see, but it is (hopefully) a clear example for you.

Interesting to know if the driver update solutions also impact sound quality. This is win8 only? I have not experienced any stops after the pagefile/reboot tricks.

Regards, Coen

I never have the problem any more (most do not I think), but I (only now) feel it can be related to using the Silverstone. Since then I also have USB2 and USB3 disabled in the BIOS. I am not sure anymore when it stopped to happen though, and what I recall is "since an upgrade". But for me this tells nothing (always using all canges right away); for all of you it will.

Peter

[CoenP]

Something noteworthy about the hump:

Yesterday I went back to win7 again, and I thought wtf!? A clear emphasis on the mid bass compared to what I was hearing before.

BUT:
Then I noticed that I was still in "normal" OS and rebooted to "minimized" OS. And from there everything turned normal again: the nice win7 sound without a noticeable hump.

regards, Coen

[acg]

Surely someone else would have noticed this.

Anthony, then you go claim that both sound the same ?

Otherwise you ask rhetorical questions with the most obvious answer that I don't know (and I am saying that from the start of W8 - there HAS to be a difference and I don't know where it can be, but at least I think I am one step further now).

On a side note (or not) what always puzzled me is that AmirM (former lead developer of Vista Audio Team) was asked the question (WBF through Mani) and he didn't even respond. Why ?

But the most logical is it has to be in "USB" somewhere. At least from that I can reason that a digital loop-back (to check bit perfectness) not necessairly travels the same path as when we go to a DAC. This is all driver stuff with also the notice that W8 is totally different here than W7 (with btw "solutions" in 8.1), and OS/X being even more of a mess.
IOW you don't know what (audio) driver developers all have to do in order to let USB work decently; it's completely tweaked by now (OS/X worse than W8).

What's a bit new is that I'll receive a new library for the driver which in my opinion can solve the stopping of W8 after 10.x minutes, which some people still suffer from. The message : It can happen that W8 forgets to ask for a new (audio) package, so the PC actually doesn't send it and sound stops.
Notice this is a derival from other issues solved in this library and whether it really solves that problem is to see, but it is (hopefully) a clear example for you.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Sorry abut the semi-rhetorical questions.  I guess that I never thought that the frequency response would be anything but flat in any operating system...just too basic an assumption in hindsight obviously...surely not difficult to get right.

Regards,

Anthony

[CoenP]

Hi all,

While we are amidst fact/opinion finding I wondered about the origins of the bass hump in win7. I like to share some thoughts that go left and right on this for those who wonder too.

When we exclude the possibility that nVolts of noise anywhere can cause +2.5dB difference in DAC output, the foremost candidate is the datastream itself. Since the bump is in such a limited frequency range it is IMO impossible that it stems from semi random flipping bits. The phenomenon is therefore a time related issue and then the order of the samples becomes prime suspect.

Now if we have an interface that does not notice dropped (or all 0) or duplicate samples or systematically corrupt samples or swapped samples or whatever sample "error" and this happens at a certain (approximate) interval, then the DACs output will contain a  signal at that frequency. Like in a way noise shaping takes advantage of.

This may seem plausible but:
A for me unexplained factor following the reasoning above is that only the ~90Hz tones seem to be impacted. This should be noticeable on a frequency sweep on the nos1a.
Or are they not alone and do the 90Hz tones show up in any FFT ?!
And what about the hump having the same relative gain for all levels?! I would expect it to be proportional to the "volume" level of the data.
Or what about it not being random at all because otherwise your tracks would have sounded different each time you listen....(or do they...). This consistency points IMHO to software components that repetitively create the same errors.

Another interesting part is how the OS plays a role in all this. Apparently there are differences in the way the OS handles the audio data and maybe there are also differences in interaction between hardware, OS and XX-software. Like a different chipset, #cpu etc requires different drivers with their own influence.
Anyway like Peter said, you may establish a successfull USB transmission, but what is assuring you that the data actually reach the DACs in the intended order? And how sure are we/can we be that the proper data is sent?

Anyway, if we assume that the Hardware and OS together with XX are capable of influencing the extend and frequency of the sample "misbehaviours" then we have an audible and consequent influence on the sound. And also one that is consistent over the same configuration and thus is different for others!

If we in the end cannot find a digital mechanism that causes such a consequent narrow banded anomaly then it must be PC noise still creeping in,   big time.

Thanks for reading so far !

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Hi Coen,

After reading this I get a bit scared. I mean, we now (obviously !) make this a heavy subject, while the means it was detected by me is very very indirect and therefore vague. Too vague to dedicate the very discrete potential causes like you pose them. The least I should do is applying the same measurements (or calibration actually) by means of W8.
It is only that I will run into an at this moment unknown number of installs of software and drivers etc., in order to be able to do it in the first place, so I don't like to do it. But as soon as we are going to talk "too difficult" then that is first, right ?

What is also first is that a sweep you talk about can "almost" be done in the digital domain. With this I mean that best would be to measure at the DAC output and which is nothing strange to begin with and if that does not show the 2.5dB difference for W7 and W8 then what. *This* now is easy, because all it needs is playing a test signal of ~90Hz through W7 vs W8 (can be done by XXHE of course) with an analyser hooked up to the same DAC and look for differences.
So this should be the first thing to do.

Thanks,
Peter

[PeterSt]

But of course I won't believe myself that I am going to see that 2.5dB difference and this is also why I start to be scared;

My story is great of course; calibrate a speaker under W7, listen to it under W8 for judgement to next state that it was tuned to W7 and therefore sounds different in W8 than what was measured from it which was done in W7. Next, we take out one notch which was under suspicion anyway, and now the sound in W8 is the same as in W7 with notch. Well, it is true I'm afraid, but if really really true it should show that 2.5dB difference on the DAC output.

All in other words (and not much different from your ideas about it Coen) : I won't believe that I will see the 2.5dB difference because I see no explanation for it, while on the other hand the audible difference is 1000% clear.

In the mean time I went a step further with this filter suggestion : Re: Your First Weekend DSP Twip.
You can't see it in there, but what I did with that was making more flat which was not. So, one part of it I copied into below screenshot, and with some imagination (or experience) you can see that this part compensates for its left part of something like a 80Hz center frequency (never mind the 104.2Hz center frequency physically used which is related to another filter) to 40Hz. So, correction stops at the mouse pointer.

No Mani, I did not forget about your 40-80Hz remark.

Everybody should realize (and keep on doing that) that we talk about the calibration of a speaker and all we see, and what I myself *can* see, is what it produces for flat line or not. If there is a peak somewhere we try to flatten it, and might there be a dip somewhere we can try to boost it (with DSP). No single person is anticipating "playback software" behaviour, obviously. However, while we now clearly talk about that (Operating System), we should never forget that we stil look through a speaker which requires corrections.

When I was finished with the lot, not only that 90Hz required notch came from it, but also the more broadband 40-80Hz. It is a bit hard to see them separate, but say that the correction is from 40 to 90Hz and this implies a notch. So envision below graph to be inverted and leave out the part to the right of 90Hz.
But this is strange. Well, here we go again, it is theoretically strange because where the driver should start rolling off (~100Hz) it needs more notching. But where are theories when the design of the speaker is just compensating for that roll off to begin with. Thus, what I'm saying is that we just look at "a result" and take it for granted. Not much more to do.

Yes, until you take out that broadbanded notch by means of an "anti-boost" and which is what I did with that latest filter suggestion and ... which now even MORE resembles W7 when used under W8.

So, ... or nothing ?

Let's emphasize : All I did was putting on a blindfold and make a line straight which I can expect to be straight where it for filter results. This is (still) hard to explain, but let's say that if anything, with a rolling off driver beyond 100Hz there should be a compensating boost. I did not even apply that - I applied a straight line. This thus, while Windows 7 showed a "compensating" notch to be necessary.
And as a side note : the real boost begins at 40Hz where "W7 also needs that" (??) and I did not touch that. Do notice though that if I leave it to the people themselves (Mani, VJ, KnB) they all add just over 2dB to the whole line (up to the crossover) first, which I did too (!). So from this you could determine that the whole of W7 shows ~2dB more bass up to ... dunno (but say the crossover).

Still with me ?

For sound results it is up to now quite hard to determine whether this last trick (in the Twip topic) colours the sound or just is for the better overall. And you know what ? I tend to say the latter. It is clear to me that it requires more fine tuning, but without that it looks like I can live with this because what now happens in that low area is 10 times better than it was. And the colouring I digest and seems like needing to get used to (also : I am not sure whether I hear colouring or whether things got nicely profound while a virtual nothing was there before - this is close to 100Hz and might be that necessary 90Hz notch after all, for more or lesser extend).

Sorry for the difficult sentence(s).

Point is and remains : I now listen to W7 but still better. Yesterday, like the day before, I hear no colouring anymore after 30 minutes or so. Instead, all what I play now shows roar and thunder and more than deep down earth. I now can play the more old "ambient" (say 2007 and earlier) with the idea that that stuff has to have it from the lower frequencies and which did not show at all before (under W8). Therefore it was "nothing" because the higher frequencies on their own made no sense (to me).
The normal music is not coloured at all, BUT, implies a fullness which may not be real. And yes, it has something like a cheap speaker (VJ didn't put it like that, but I know what he means). Still, it is a famliar sound and the fullness (filling the room) is something I like.

Notice : This latter is exactly where W8 turned into that other direction to begin with. A sort of less fuzzy in the bass. More clean and a perceived more dark. But maybe something we shouldn't like much, because of too clean.

Lastly a nice other note :
What we have with the two "Twip" appliances, brings us to the limits of Windows 8 were it for the low end and the Orelo MKII speaker. I mean, if more deep down earth comes from this, the vulcano will explode. *Because* of being at this limit, I am sure it is interesting to listen with these DSP settings to Windows 7 again, because all should be a totally clear complete mess.

Peter

[CoenP]

All in other words (and not much different from your ideas about it Coen) : I won't believe that I will see the 2.5dB difference because I see no explanation for it, while on the other hand the audible difference is 1000% clear

Check. It would probably have been noticed anyway in the development of the NOS1.

Now something that causes a percieved difference of a few dB's can't be small or can it? To me this is the real audio mystery and allways raises the question:if we cannot measure it, are we measuring the right stuff then?

Now you seem to have got the bass on win7 level, what about the highs? Can you mimic the gray (in your setup) highs of win 7 in win 8? Not that you gain any direct advantage from that. Yet this would be an ultimate test that OS disturbances primarily cause percieved frequency abberations which is much more desirable than a fine detail robbing noise.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Now something that causes a percieved difference of a few dB's can't be small or can it? To me this is the real audio mystery and allways raises the question:if we cannot measure it, are we measuring the right stuff then?

Yesterday I started another post but I didn't finalize it because I got stuck in my reasoning (it prooved some adverse effect of what I was attempting to achieve). Still the truth can be in there. Here is that unfinished text :

At writing my last sentence I got an idea of what's also an explanation, but of such different kind that it will justify the 90Hz to have the same output on both W7 and W8 (again, which is what I expect because I can't see how it will be different) :

So W7 is more messy in general. Now think the whole spectrum, with us needing to remember that the highs are grey just the same and actually no accuracy/resolution is there to begin with (all relative to W8).

What I clearly notice for a difference, is that W8 now goes as low as W7 but it is not messy at all. Again hard to explain, but MKII owners will understand. Thus, no matter how deep down earth low, the vibrations of the frequencies remain, while W7 will just show "low". Also to remember : with W7 you do not feel the woofers following what you (think you) hear, while with W8 you do.

I have said before that when a lower frequency distorts for not being straight (this will not be exactly the same as 2nd, 3rd harmonic distortion), it will go more low. This is actually the "warble" and how the distortion repeats at for example each 5 cycles of the wave. Thus, 100Hz becomes 20Hz, although with not as much energy as intended (plus a few more frequencies, thus messy).

If we believe a bit in such story, we can envision that
a. This shows on the analyser for an indeed somewhat lower output of the 100Hz;
b. It could show a 20Hz small peak (FFT) which of course nobody took care to look for (I at least do not);
c. What may show for minor differences on the anlayser may show way more on the "more analogue" output.



Yes. So what I was actually saying is that what's small distortion on the DAC output, not necessarily remains small in a speaker driver. This is the IMD (Intermodulation Distortion) stuff again. So let's think for our comfort (and my story) that any small "warble" signal in the more digital domain (but think DAC output) is totally harmless *there*. It's just electronics (or electricity) and the fact that this springs from the source will NOT be detrimental to the D/A conversion (assumed all is fast enough). Now :

With a speaker driver this is a totally different story. With a speaker driver you could say that *any* two tones in one driver will cause problems. So now envision that 20Hz to be there because the source implies it (W7) and while this 20Hz is now the carrier, the 100Hz needs to ride on that and all sorts of distortion will be our share (Doppler to begin with).

So what I am trying to say is that what the analyser may not show at all (or I don't know where to look, plus the differences are minor), can be audible vastly. Also, just as this is audbile, the measurement for calibration (which is through microphone) will detect it as easily as we perceive it audibly.

Where I got stuck is that my 100Hz example will show a lower level (because of spread to 20Hz) while it should show higher level (remember, the W7 measurement needs notching).
Of course today I can try to say that a false 20Hz is that product what needs notching, but this is not how measurement works. Thus, if a put up a 100Hz signal, the 20Hz is not observed. Or might it work the other way around : when I put up a 20Hz signal and the 100Hz would be a false byproduct, then the 100Hz is not observed - only the 20Hz.

All together, this post was about IMD in a speaker being much more profound than IMD in electronics, but this time with a base of IMD being there in the source. So two (or more) tones (implied by the OS somehow) while one should be there, and these byproducts being so low in level that you can't observe them, while the speaker driver tries to represent it, and inherently shows additional distortion because of that.

Far sought ?

[CoenP]

Of course today I can try to say that a false 20Hz is that product what needs notching, but this is not how measurement works. Thus, if a put up a 100Hz signal, the 20Hz is not observed. Or might it work the other way around : when I put up a 20Hz signal and the 100Hz would be a false byproduct, then the 100Hz is not observed - only the 20Hz.

Why is it not measurable?

Some thoughts and associations:

What I think is problematic with your observations is that the 20Hz in your example is a byproduct of another tone (100Hz+a litllebit of something). So its magnitude will depend on that tone(s) being present, not on legitimate 20Hz tones. No way this can be compensated for with a notch or hump at 20Hz.
Iow the correction would be for the amplitude of real 20Hz tones and not others.

Also we need to establish if the magnitude of the added tones in win 7 is relatively fixed or not: If you always listen at the same level, the correction may just be perfect to correct the byproducts generated at that frequency at that level, but it will not work anymore when playing louder (effective correction becomes to big) or softer (correction becomes to small).
Secondly you really want to know if the unwanted "boost"  is related to the tones themselves or to others in the music. If a byproduct, then different kinds of music would need different corrections. (the modulation will be linked to the general level of the music and as such grow and shrink along with the rest of the spectrum.)

So I really doubt that applying a loud speaker notch for win7 can completely "cure" a boost problem.
Furthermore I think that the boost range is so limited and specific (non-random) that we must think of an analog modulation of the output signal which can be caused by jitter (can we get any lower?), PSU (ultra low noise), grounding (...USB...?) or radiation (...). This modulation can also fog up the rest of the spectrum.

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

I stubbled upon this thread on CA, especially the tekst in the first post is remarkable:

-link removed see post below-

With these figures you would never expect an USB audio device to be any better than a budget CD player. I think you have to take them with a pinch of salt, but it is all very fragile and provides a basis for audibility of OS/hardware and software through the USB line yet I am not shure how exactly that should impact sound.

Peter joins in at the end and that is the point where it gets interesting (technical) again. Will the NOS1b have an 10G ETN optical interface? Or more interesting: will it sound like WIN 8 (I hope not!  )?

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Maybe you linked to the wrong thread there Coen. Nothing much interesting in that thread that I know.
I think you wanted to refer to something which quotes Gordon Rankin. Or ?

Regards,
Peter

[CoenP]

Maybe you linked to the wrong thread there Coen. Nothing much interesting in that thread that I know.
I think you wanted to refer to something which quotes Gordon Rankin. Or ?

Regards,
Peter

Yep, wrong thread. Indeed it was the GR quote:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/gordon-rankin-says-im-wrong-about-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-cable-sound-20814/#post328624

I will delete the link from the previous post.

regards, Coen

[listening]

Hi Coen,

just another aspect is discussed hier: http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2012/12/differential-signaling-best-practices

Especially the line-to-line impedance imbalance and transmission line lengths seem to be interesting.


Georg

[CoenP]

thanks Georg,

Dispite all the mess we can still enjoy music (if everything works)!

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

Hi,

In anticipation of my NOS1a this spring, I reconfigured my audio PC for convenience rather than best audio. This was under the assumption the the expected SQ for the 1a -in my setup(!)- would be unaffected by these changes.

Making the DAC sing proved more of a challenge than I expected: it needed extra attention on the powersupply and I've been fiddling with Osses, settings, USB cables, pci cards, powerarrangements, cables, etc.

Only recently I arrived again at excellent sound and guess what: I'm completely back on my pre-1a best sound setup (save for the dysfunctional usb cable).
Unexpectedly the biggest progress was made by removing the second music harddrive, so much so that I consider to get rid of one of the remaining two.
Also the 'best' settings in XX are identical too.

Anyway it is now vey clear that the 1a is vastly superior to the nos, but also that I'm kind of stuck in win7 and 09e. Stuck but statisfied that is!

Again the PC and surroundings is the all determining factor for SQ. It all starts with a sufficiently quiet and stable powersupply. Maybe there has been enough progress on supplies that can do better than the current seasonic...

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... in itself nice Coen !
Luckily I never admitted that the PC does not matter. Hard for me to try. What I do know is that I still have that one spinning small OS disk in it only, the music obtained over the LAN from another PC.

Regards,
Peter

[juanpmar]

Again the PC and surroundings is the all determining factor for SQ.

Hi Coen,

Very interesting your conclusions of that there is influence of the PC hardware in the SQ or, in other words and if I´m not wrong, that the NOS1a is not totally isolated from the PC hardware. Although I understand Peter´s last post this isolation issue maybe would need further details.

Taking a look at the configuration of your PC I see that you are using a Megahalems passive cooling (no fans running), would you tell me please what Megahalems model are you using and, if possible, could you put some pictures of your PC? I still have three fans in my PC and I would like to try it totally passive.

You have also the "Power cable PE not connected, together with nos1 and poweramp in "audio" strip". Does it mean that the PE not connected is only the one in the cable from the power strip to the wall? or the power cables from the NOS1 and power amp have also the PE disconnected?

Would you please put your XX settings in your signature? sorry but I don´t remember.

Regards,
Juan

[boleary]

I'm not getting the NOS1a upgrade till sometime after the new year, but I've been wondering what folks have experienced regarding XX/PC settings. So, Coen, I really appreciate your last post! But now I'm a bit concerned that with the NOS1a, setting up an RDC with a laptop to control XX might cause SQ issues. Setting up such a connection is something I'm very much looking forward to. Maybe there is a trade off with an RDC connection which then lets one disconnect mouse, keyboard and monitor? Just wondering.

One more thing, maybe Coen's post and replies should be in a new thread about XX/PC settings with NOS1a?

[PeterSt]

if I´m not wrong, that the NOS1a is not totally isolated from the PC hardware. Although I understand Peter´s last post this isolation issue maybe would need further details.

That isolation is 100% alright, but there's the mains part of it all. So like I always told : the influence by the (XXHighEnd) settings is one (I don't see that happening any more) and the "hardware" part is another. Thus for example how the USB connection can be better and worse and (surprise ?) how now the USB cable matters. Or possibly that always did, but now you can hear it (the NOS1a being so much better again).

It is really hard to work out the influence over the mains, but my guts always told me that the PC must be as lean as possible on the power consuption. Or better : as even as possible. So that is what I still do (like still using the 430MHz "speed") and no further devices attached to it. But I did not try to do it otherwise either ...

Peter

[CoenP]

Hi,

This is just about me having changed a highly tweaked  PC before the arrival of the nos 1a.
If you have good sound now, you will definitely have much better sound with the 1a.

Like Peter said, it's much more about PC psu noise than anything else. Contrary to the hardware changes, the software influence is much smaller than I was used to. Still cpu and memory can still pose a signature to the sound via the power consumption patterns of the BIOS and OS/software. Like having another device in the USB port or Ethernet enabled.

I also believe that the PC supply has a dominant role in suppressing this noise (or by not doing that). I am thinking right now about a linear base supply and switching local regulators. These linear supplies are much less tightly coupled to the power line. For an all linear supply I have to get a new system with less power consumption.

Regards, Coen

[christoffe]

Hi,

I also believe that the PC supply has a dominant role in suppressing this noise (or by not doing that). I am thinking right now about a linear base supply and switching local regulators. These linear supplies are much less tightly coupled to the power line. For an all linear supply I have to get a new system with less power consumption.

Regards, Coen

Hi,

This might be (is) the reason that the SQ with my laptop is better than with the PC, much better.
The laptop sees the 19Volts only.

Now I have to look for a linear power supply for the laptop.

Joachim

[CoenP]

This might be (is) the reason that the SQ with my laptop is better than with the PC, much better.
The laptop sees the 19Volts only.

Now I have to look for a linear power supply for the laptop.

Hi,

Like the Velleman regulated supply. Cheap and effective? (!)

With my MacbookPro (i5, 2013) laptop I also got excellent sound with the 1a. I play tunes on A+ and a demo version of HiQplayer. On batteries it is slighly better than on mains not a night and day difference. Unfortunately no XXHE on the OS-X platform if it were only for the ArcPrediction filters.
The OS-X NOS driver may need an update since my little iFI nano DAC plays 384 without hickups even when I keep on working on the PC. No such thing with the NOS, i have to put up with an intrruption every now and then.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

I just sent you a possible newer OS/X driver (logically it is because your NOS1(a)-USB is older than that.
Let me know whether this helps.

Peter

[CoenP]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the effort. There are still hiccups especially when I move the arrow around the screen. That is at certain specific moments, probably when track loading takes place or there is competition over CPU priority. Something like that.

Also a new OS-X version since yesterday that I have not installed. (yet).

..On batteries it is slighly better than on mains not a night and day difference....

FWIW there is a (expected) difference between a charged laptop and a charging one with the power cable connected.

regards, Coen

[Mamba315]

I just sent you a possible newer OS/X driver

Is this the awaited NOS1a driver? 

[PeterSt]

No ... That was supposed to work last Friday but did not.
Soon ...

[michaeljeger]

Hi Peter

I also hope there will be a Mac driver.
I just think Macs deserve a more prominent role in your system.
The hardware is just so much nicer.
The minis look so good and yet are quite powerful.

Regards, Michael

[PeterSt]

Hey Michael,

Maybe I don't understand - maybe you don't understand - and possibly we need to define "your system" first, but ...

This forum originally is about XXHighEnd which runs on Windows. True, this becomes a bit not-so-visible because a.o. we are now posting in a board dedicated to the NOS1 D/A converter.

Possibly you are not aware of the fact that the Mac has been supported by the NOS1 right from the start of the USB version. Ehm, including a driver for it. It is only that the "a" version requires a new driver version which - and this is also good to understand - is as difficult for Windows as it is for the Mac to realize. Both for totally different reasons, but still true. There is one important difference between the both though and this is that for Windows I (we all) can do without the driver change because I can do what is needed from the Playback software just the same, while for the Mac I have no playback software and so I'm stuck to the Mac driver requireing that change. But FYI the Mac driver will be there sooner than the Windows driver (for now obvious reasons, but about your "prominent role").

If "your system" is meant to be about that I better make a Mac player, then what to say. But I don't think you meant that ?

Edit : You can also mean that you don't see much about Mac's in here in relation to the NOS1. But *that* is everybody's own choice ...

Best regards,
Peter

HEY, Welcome here !!!
(you must soon put something in your Sig - )

[michaeljeger]

Hello Peter

With system I mean a computer + the Phase NOS DAC.
The computer is important because the filtering is done in the computer.

My observation is that most people in the forum use Windows based computers, because your software (XXHighend) works only in Windows.

I would love it if more Mac users to be also vocal on this forum and report about their experience with the Phasure Nos1(a) DAC.
What kind of software they are using, what settings etc.

I think you could attract more users on the Mac side as well if you offered your software for the Mac as well. I assume though that maintaining code for 2 different OSs is too time consuming.

I used Windows machines a lot in the past but switched about 6 years ago due to the fact that Mac Hardware is just so much nicer My personal taste obliously.
And my hassle to maintain the system in the MAC is basically zero. Do not get me wrong, i do not want to start a MAC vs PC discussion, just my personal experience.

It just occured to me that when I saw in another thread here the photos of the gear people use, the PC usally had the least apealing look

Best regards, Michael

[CoenP]

I used Windows machines a lot in the past but switched about 6 years ago due to the fact that Mac Hardware is just so much nicer My personal taste obliously.
And my hassle to maintain the system in the MAC is basically zero. Do not get me wrong, i do not want to start a MAC vs PC discussion, just my personal experience.

It just occured to me that when I saw in another thread here the photos of the gear people use, the PC usally had the least apealing look

Hi Michael,

I'm with you here, but I only bought my first Mac recently. 60% of the decision was daily windows frustration and 40% because of the MUCH better look and feel of Mac products. My MBP is the best (& best looking) computer I ever used. I even went BYOD with the Mac in my daily occupation.
 
I still have and use Windows stuff (win7) predominantly for "High End" audio. There's simply no alternative yet. I wouldn't regret leaving the platform altogether but that's not an option today.

regards, Coen

[michaeljeger]

Hi Coen
Thanks for your feedback.
Why would you say that PCs are better for HighEnd Audio?
Is it due to the fact that you can select specific hardware like USB Cards?

Regards, Michael

[Mamba315]

99% of my Phasure NOS1 (now "a") usage has been under Mac OSX.  Peter did try the Audirvana+ player at one point, so he has recommended filter settings for that player if using the NOS1.  I tried to get HQplayer working but ran into an error after install that I couldn't understand or solve, so I gave up.

It gets worse.  Most of my music is played over Spotify with OSX up sampling to 384K.  Look under the AudiiMIDI utility for this.  This is a capability that Peter actually reminded me of, since I'd forgotten about it It's not because Spotify is ideal for SQ, but simply because it's a very easy way to hear new music.

Interesting regarding Peters recent comment that low-power computers may be ideal because mains noise can still affect sound.  The Mac Mini is designed to use much less than a typical PC.  Apple seems to prioritize this during development since it's always part of their marketing spiel.  The later models especially so, although I still need to hook up my wattage meter to see what my 2012 Mini consumes.

I've never felt OSX wasn't supported, but the NOS1 was designed for XXHE so that's where most of the discussion is.  No much to discuss on the Mac side, once you have your AudioMIDI and Audirvana+ settings correct.  It makes sound, better than my Benchmark DAC2 incidentally, but not as good as it can be under XXHE.

I put Windows on the Mac too, so I can use XXHE on it.  Easy to boot into that, but I'm a creature of habit and my personal music collection is only a tiny fraction of what Peter has.  Plus I still have the XXHE PC.

When I get some new speakers (Geddes), I'll do more comparing.  I haven't felt comfortable doing comparisons so far, since every speaker so far (at least 7 over the past year) has had some serious flaw.  Learned a lot, at least..

Enough blah blah, as Peter would say 

[PeterSt]

Haha !

I still need to hook up my wattage meter to see what my 2012 Mini consumes.

Today I wondered, but now I'm sure someone has the answer !

Btw, my XXHighEnd PC consumes 48.5W during playback (yours can do that too).

Regards,
Peter

PS: Please people, talk about Macs as much as you like. Matt, you're actually (also) an unexpected person because I never know what you really use. OK, now I know. This could count for many more who maybe don't "dare" (ahum) to tell about it ?

[michaeljeger]

99% of my Phasure NOS1 (now "a") usage has been under Mac OSX.  Peter did try the Audirvana+ player at one point, so he has recommended filter settings for that player if using the NOS1.  I tried to get HQplayer working but ran into an error after install that I couldn't understand or solve, so I gave up.

It gets worse.  Most of my music is played over Spotify with OSX up sampling to 384K.  Look under the AudiiMIDI utility for this.  This is a capability that Peter actually reminded me of, since I'd forgotten about it It's not because Spotify is ideal for SQ, but simply because it's a very easy way to hear new music.

Quite interesting. I initially also struggled with HQPlayer. There have been some recent updates but I do not like the usability so much. Use mostly Audirvana. (also for my SACD Isos)

Spotify is nice but I really do not like the SQ at all. Some files are just horribly compressed vs CD-Version.
I agree that it's good to learn about new music.

A Mac Mini for Playback will be probably around 30 Watts total.

Regards, Michael

[CoenP]

Hi Coen
Thanks for your feedback.
Why would you say that PCs are better for HighEnd Audio?

Is it due to the fact that you can select specific hardware like USB Cards?

Maybe.
At this point in time its not a fair comparison, apples and oranges. My PC is higly tuned towards to what my system is capable of for my listening preferences. That includes hardware, mobo and all software. Mac starts out a a totally different point for all these items. Maybe we will find a way. The low power laptop route sounds promising so far.
FYI my best sound up till now uses settings different form Peter's general recommended ones. And it sounds darn good to me.

I've only begun with the Apple to explore its possibilities, just to get a better understanding of what a different setup means to the sound. The're not much alternatives to A+ and HQ player from a quality perspective. I think expensive Amarra is for the really committed MAC user. It took me some time to get sound out of the HiqPlayer, but I managed. While darker and more rough I still prefer A+. As I understand for maximum SQ HqP is intended to be used with the NAA that runs on Linux (no NOS driver for that).
Played around with settings but no real tweaking so this may change.

I don't know what is possible, but I can imagine something like an OS-X AudioUnit to provide for ArcPrediction/Custom "filter" up to 16x in a Mac environment. That would make a comparison more enlightening...

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

Taking a look at the configuration of your PC I see that you are using a Megahalems passive cooling (no fans running), would you tell me please what Megahalems model are you using and, if possible, could you put some pictures of your PC? I still have three fans in my PC and I would like to try it totally passive.

It's the Prolimatech Megahalems rev.B. I have a big "noiseless" fan attached with rpm controller (turn knob) for the really hot days in summer or when I convert videos with GPU acceleration. Normally the controller is disconnected from the supply.
When in music mode in the summer it gets nicely warm to the touch, its cool this time of year.
Since the memory and Southbridge are not stressed I assumed temperature is no issue, but I never checked that. I know there are south bridge coolers; I used one to make my atom passively cooled. There are cooling fins on the memory and I have the lazy habit of leaving the side of the PC open for easy access.

Sometimes I forgot to remove the fan controller and the sound irritated me enough to stop the music and start looking for the cause. So I consider the absence of PC PSU powered fans quite important. 

Now the PC is hidden and it's dark, I will make a photo on a more convenient time.

You have also the "Power cable PE not connected, together with nos1 and poweramp in "audio" strip". Does it mean that the PE not connected is only the one in the cable from the power strip to the wall? or the power cables from the NOS1 and power amp have also the PE disconnected?

I have to update: One Siltech octopus power strip (8 outlet) at the mains outlet. This outlet has no PE, PE has to come from a different room but is NOT connected now. Mind you I have both the black wire and the USB PCI card "connected".
The Siltech supports NOS1a, audio PC and a secondary strip. The Secondary strip is old fashioned without PE (flat type) that supports all current and historic power plugs (sometimes 50-60's tube amps get connected). This is where the "power" amp is connected wich plug is the consumer flat type without earthing. What is confusing in my current signature is that I intended to refer to the disconnected PE of the PC cable. It is disconnected at the PC's side (Europlug).  The NOS cable is a stock Euro cable on which I placed a sturdier plug and Euroconnector with PE connected at both sides.

I hope this makes it a little clearer.

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

But now I'm a bit concerned that with the NOS1a, setting up an RDC with a laptop to control XX might cause SQ issues. Setting up such a connection is something I'm very much looking forward to. Maybe there is a trade off with an RDC connection which then lets one disconnect mouse, keyboard and monitor? Just wondering.

This was my theory, but I only tested it on WIN8 and its no secret that I don't like that at all. Anyway disabling the KVM did not do very much, but the RDC was a nice improvement in the right direction, but certainly not enough to leave WIN7  !

Removing the PCI-e Videocard was a bad idea even when there was no monitor on the output. The sound became feeble and powerless and atmosphere was lost.

Back on WIN7 disabling the Ethernet again (no RDC) was an important step in the journey back to excellent sound again.

So YMMV.
I'd say save the convenience improvements for another day.

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Removing the PCI-e Videocard was a bad idea even when there was no monitor on the output. The sound became feeble and powerless and atmosphere was lost.

[CoenP]

Removing the PCI-e Videocard was a bad idea even when there was no monitor on the output. The sound became feeble and powerless and atmosphere was lost.

Mind you I have an i5. My take is that the GPU on the CPU got activated again by the removal of the videocard with detrimental effects on SQ.

regards, Coen

[boleary]

Hey Coen, thanks for your October 20th reply. I've been traveling and somehow I missed it. Like you, I'm still on W7. Every time I try W8 the sound gets out of control with all kinds of HF distortion. I haven't tried W8 with the bnc cable. That might make a difference.

Regarding the RDC, I thought that folks were using it with the NOS1a upgrade?

[PeterSt]

Mind you I have an i5. My take is that the GPU on the CPU got activated again by the removal of the videocard with detrimental effects on SQ.

Hey Coen, that was the first thing slipping to my mind. But then your Sig says "No IGP" and although I had to guess its meaning I thought of No Internal Graphic Processor. This combined with an I5 of which I thought "isn't probably even in it (GPU)" ...

But otherwise I would have suggested exactly like you say now (see quote). *If* there's a GPU in there !

Peter

[PeterSt]

Regarding the RDC, I thought that folks were using it with the NOS1a upgrade?

Brian, not that I know of for explicit "a" reasons. All I know is that many use it in the first place.
I for sure know one : Me.

So it is only that the NOS1a 100% allows for it now, but the XXHighEnd settings for it are doable but not intuitive (is anything ? ) and I did not lay them out (since the 1.186-i version for it is not official anyway).
But working on THAT ...

Peter

[CoenP]

But otherwise I would have suggested exactly like you say now (see quote). *If* there's a GPU in there !

Confusing terminology, but the i5-2500k I use has an onboard (modest) GPU aka an IGP. When no videocard installed the BIOS defaults to the IGP for video. Powerconsumtion wise this setup is an advantage, but it didn't sound like that.

regards, Coen

[boleary]

So it is only that the NOS1a 100% allows for it now, but the XXHighEnd settings for it are doable but not intuitive (is anything ? swoon) and I did not lay them out (since the 1.186-i version for it is not official anyway).
But working on THAT ...

Peter

Looking forward to it! Thanks.

Brian

[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?  )

High regards Johan

[PeterSt]

Hey Johan,

To be sure : You did not upgrade to NOS1a-75B, correct ? I mean, if I look in my sent emails I don't even see anything about sending you the upgrade procedure for it (read : I forgot).

So assumed you did not go to the 75B yet ... now it's a bit difficult to say you should do that. Because remember, first of all it is about being satisfied with the "a" (and perceiving the difference with the normal NOS1).
So that will changes things for sure but I can't say it will be better when you have problems first.

What USB cable do you use ? could be the most crucial. And remember please - this now ("a") matters.

Regards,
Peter

[JohanZ]

You did not upgrade to NOS1a-75B, correct ?

I don't know what you mean by that. I'm using the Blaxius with adapters. I did not change the RCA connectors yet. Please PM me the upgrade procedure or do i need first to change the connectors?
 

What USB cable do you use ?

I'm using your standard USB cable.

Regards Johan

[PeterSt]

I don't know what you mean by that. I'm using the Blaxius with adapters. I did not change the RCA connectors yet. Please PM me the upgrade procedure or do i need first to change the connectors?

I just checked and forgot at first; all you need to do (in your case) is replace the RCA connectors with the BNC. Amp side the same (no procedure as such needed for that). This is not too difficult of course (I hope) so you could try that for solution. But the bass will only get "better" of it, which means that at least you will perceive more of it. So it it will work out ? But best would be to first compare (use) your interlinks you always used. I mean, working with the adpaters is far from official. No real outcome to be predicted. But I guess you already did that ...

Fact would be that W8 shows less depth. Not that I myself notice that any more (and maybe it is not even so any more) but the least we can say is that W8 will show less bass. But better quality.

Hard to tell you what to do Johan, except for not testing with the Blaxius' and adapters. But maybe with a next feedback from you I'll have more ideas ?
And if we both can't think of anything, then maybe it's best after all to spend one hour to put the BNC terminals in (DAC + amps(s)). Then at least all is as intended ...

Peter