XXHighEnd

To Peak Extend or not that is the question?

Since installing 9z-7-4 I find that Peak Extend has a very significant impact on SQ.

I certainly prefer PE *OFF*. The sound to these ears at least is more alive and with the right recordings of the highest SQ I have heard in this system. BUT sometimes it seems to me that the sound is just a little untidy - but strangely I can still listen to it for hours without fatigue. Sometime I do get tempted to listen to a more tidy sound so I select PE to be *ON*. But then the sound is not as *live* sounding and becomes smooth - too smooth. On balance PA is going to stay *OFF* except maybe for the most wayward of recordings.

But sometimes I just wonder if there is just a little too much going on in the higher reaches of the frequency spectrum. I am certainly not complaining though SQ is simple excellent nowadays. So much so I am thinking of getting a new hobby - listening to music ha ha!.

P

Paul - hats off to you.

So here's my little secret which I don't want to keep a secret at all ... But, I sort of challenged you (all) and was waiting for a response like yours ...

If you have followed what's going on with not-Peak Extend, then you'll know this is about some compiler bug. I again tried to solve it but couldn't. And, if you'd really dig into the subject again, you'd see that only when I applied a fraction to the volume like 0.001 (0.0001 already implies the bug, and doing nothing like x 1.000 also implies the bug) then ...

From all comes that I solved it by applying that fraction. The effect ? the volume is not "lossless" anymore. So, my ever back "invented" good volume is distroyed here; it 100% exactly exhibits like you describe ...
That's why the hats off.

With Peak Extend this does not happen. So there you have all of the good attenuation which is 100% linear. Without PE it is not ...
So see ? this *is* audible.

Good job,
Peter

Fa, blue-eyed Paul gets all the credit.

Waaaaaaaay back (OK, on Monday), I wrote:


But I agree with everything Paul says about the change in SQ.

Mani.

Hey Paul, surely you mean *OFF*... no?

Mani.

Okay Mani, so you were first ! But ... I didn't see it like that because you sneaked out the context today. This was like this :


So see ? I was put on the wrong track because I could only read it in the context of the distortion now being out of the way and *that* possibly wasn't liked better.

I really didn't think of that now new "anomaly" (knowing very well what I had done) bugged you.

So, distortion out of the way, but a new one introduced.

Btw, use Peak Extension again, and all is without distortion, but loose ~3dB ...

Peter

Or PE On/Off ?
:scratching:

And we're long-term XX users - can you just imagine what it must be like for someone coming across XX for the first time?

I was referring to PE *OFF* being Paul's default setting as it seems he likes the more 'alive' sound.

For me, as I said, it's just too 'forward' and 'sharp'. Changing ICs has helped to calm things down, but I'm not really happy with this. I think I'll use my cheap 'anti-cable' ICs (I love 'em) and revert back to a default setting of PE *ON*.

Mani.

Please never forget my almost Rule #1 : when something like this helps, something has to be wrong.

I must admit something :

When I changed this, I was ignorant enough to never even explicitly listen to the result. I never did. But, since then I started to switch Off PE.

but

Day before yesterday we were telling to eachother that some familar album was "on the edge". And it wasn't that before.
In the mean time I had forgotten about the PE change by long. But know I know again of course.

Will undo that change which makes it back to that *other* distortion. :swoon:
Or try to solve it after all ...

Peter


PS: We played with this at the X-Fi show. :P

Oooops yes I did mean to say: -

"On balance PE is going to stay *OFF* except maybe for the most wayward of recordings. "

I have changed my post above.

Paul

Hey Paul, you may as well change 'PA' to 'PE' while you're at it :)

Mani.

Duuurrgh its one of those mornings. As you say if we get confused what chance a Newbie?

Peter - Although I agree with your Rule #1 in general I do not in this case.

When I was listening to speaker cables I first listened to bare copper wire. I then listened to lacquered copper wire. I could not hear significant difference. But both sounded MUCH better than my expensive copper speaker cable. It seemed to me that the absence of plastic could have been the reason for the good sound.

It seems to me that simple lacquered wire should be the most neutral option for speaker wire. Certainly my old PTFE coated speaker wire blurred the sound but also added an edge to it.

So maybe Mani in this case is hearing the benefits of anti cable not adding more grunge to the sound than is already (possibly) there due to PE *off*.

Mani - out of interest have you twisted the anti cables to reduce inductance?.

Paul


 

Peter - please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding from what you have written above is: -

1.  Your latest mod to PE (x .001) works around the compiler bug but introduces distortion because the volume control is no longer lossless.

2.  With PE *on* multiplying by -3db also works around the compiler bug but does not affect the lossless volume because it is multiplying by a *whole* number.

If 1. above is correct I have to say I much prefer the distortion due to lossless volume not working than the "truncated transients" distortion of previous versions.

Paul

Comfirmed Paul.

About the LS cables (do we call those "IC'S" these days ? :nea:) ...

I think what you compared (bare vs laquered) is in a different leage. As is PTFE coated etc. For exaemple, stranded wire would imply a different "filtering" means than solid.

Of course there's a lot to this all, and mostly beyond my knowlegde. But what's most important (from Mani's report) :

1. It is clear that there's a distortion factor in the source;
2. It helps when "better" cables are applied ?

-> Must be wrong. So mind you, it is the combination of the two, with #1 as the fact and #2 as something which -when it helps- must be concluded as a wrong solution.

Whem for example, anti-cables help, then this is in a very different kind of leage. Merely in the reception of external sources (of RFI etc.) and the rejection of it. So, I use coax for interlinks. Not because it filters less, but because it shields better.

Maybe it is difficult to not mix up those two different kind of "applications".
If better shielding helps, it may just be for the better. Still it will be a good idea to find the source of radiation.
If a "better" cable helps but nothing like better shielding or other means of noise rejection is in order, it will be a filter. In this case, undoubtedly one must hunt down the source of the "more sharp" sound. Like in our case at hand now.

My personal view ...
Peter

Yes, I agree. Maybe the PTFE in the 'regular' cables is actually acting as some sort of filter, which is reducing the effects of the distortion.

However, I really do think anti-cables are special. There is a clarity to them that I've just never heard from any other cables.


My anti-cables' perceived extra 'clarity' could be down to a number of reasons:

1. reduced 'inter-strand' distortion (no idea if this even exists) because there is only one strand for +ve and one for -ve; and in any event, even if they were multi-stranded (like Paul's), the individual strands are insulated from each other by the lacquer
2. reduced time smearing due to very thin dielectric (as claimed in anti-cable marketing)
3. increased EMI/RFI due to very primitive screen (not sure of the exact mechanism here though)
4. increased micro vibrations due to lack of damping in dielectric (not sure of exact mechanism here either)

Anyway, I'm pretty close to starting my vinyl digitization project. I contemplating installing a Faraday cage in my basement in which to set up a mini studio to do this. I will certainly be experimenting with various cables. If I go ahead with my plan, I should be able to eliminate 3 (due to Faraday cage) and 4 (will use headphones for monitoring).

Mani.

IC's are a can of worms for sure. Nick's experiences with the VdH cables show that.

Paul

This possibly makes not any sense (and notice that I don't know much about the subject, so just my vision) :

What I always envision with stranded wires is that
a. electrons pass on their "current" straight through a single strand;
b. also pass on their activity through a small dielectricum of air in between the strands (that's a resistance) so the original "push" (right through the strand) is followed by a more vague push (micro) behind it.

This is how I use single strand wires in the first place (like coax for the interlinks and duelund flatband cable for the LS).

The multi strand laquered strands are only multi strand to allow more current to flow. None of the "vagueness" implying like I just described should happen, if only the laquer is resistive enough.

When plus and minus flow through one cable it will imply inductance ("magnetism" ?) or whatever because of the opposite (adjacent) direction the current flows, right next to eachother.
With anti cables (but well "formed") this effect is eliminated.

I talked about it before, but the anti cable LS cables I once made for the LS connections sounded totally way way way bright and nothing sounded like without them. BUT, they were unbearable most probably (or actually hopefully) because so many other things in my system were wrong. So, in my imagination, all they did was passing on what was going on in my source and all the normally filtering means were not active anymore. This was in the time I maybe didn't even start XXHighEnd. So I really should try it again.
And yes, already over a year back I bought that laquered wire but never had the time to apply it. I really should have by now.

One thing I know for sure : my description of "vagueness" from the start of this post will for sure also vaguen any "too sharp" peaks. So, real peaks will extend to broather peaks (hence be no real peaks anymore) and the peaks themselves will be smeared into more flatness because of the adjacent non-peaky part of the signal. This is how I mean "filters". It's not so diffficult to see.

Remember, distortions are frequencies. Always. Flatten those and they will be less profound, and their harmonics (more distortions) will be faded out.
In the mean time, the actual signal is flattened along with it. Not good.

Peter

Hi Peter,

You've got me thinking here about the vagueness sound of non isolated multi stranded cables.

If it is like you say that there is a resistance (or contact potential) to overcome for an electron before hopping to another strand, imho it becomes less likely that it occurs. The electron will allways follow the path of least resistance along the electromagnetic wave that is associated with their transport. Extra potential or resistance will just make the stay more in their conductor unless some serious advantage presents itself (a seriously thicker wire?, charge of other wires?).

What I think is that it is the wave along the strand itself that is much more influenced by waves of other strands than in the case of isolated strands. The same goes probably for wire impurities irt the preservation of the em wave. Restoring this wave looks to be the trick of the byebee tweaks. Reasoning this further it is, from a conduction perpective, better to have only one (thin) conductor (if you do not have the byebee devices in place).

The trick is to have a sufficiently large enough cross section of this conductor to transport the charge needed by the loudspeakers whilst balancing the impedance (inductance and capacitance). There is more to loudspeaker interfacing than conducting alone.

Anyway I would be surprised if the multi isolated conductor works for the better in your setup, that is letting you hear more distortions.

Regards, Coen

Peter - and also what about the frequency dependent 1/f noise inherent in all current carrying conductors below 2Khz? It may seem reasonable to assume that the mechanisms and cable constructions you describe above could create and shape the noise in different ways. Maybe RF could also be part of the story in creating / shaping noise.

Peter I suspect you were (are?) sceptical but in my system Bybee's provided one of the biggest improvements I have heard. They fundamentally improved SQ - improving clarity reducing "hash".

And reducing 1/f noise is measurable which is how the bybees were developed - i.e. to reduce it.

My experience remains that with Bybee's installed the sonic impact of different cables (OK I tried only two but very different types) is negated. Maybe time to do that test again with more cables now that the bybees and all my other system components are properly run in (which they were not at the time).

Paul

Interesting extended listening session just now. First some background - there have been many changes to my system all at once, new amps, new decoupling caps, power supply caps, speaker bass units and then on top of all of that 9z71,2,3 & 4 and then finally the balanced power supply transformer. And then of course running with PE *off* which I had not done for a long time.

The sound of my system improved substantially through all of that but I just could not get over the feeling that the system was not as smooth as it used to be. But never mind it was much better SQ after all. I thought that decoupling caps were maybe responsible.

Because of my nagging doubts about the "rough edge" I set Q1=20 and SFS=430 to smooth over the rough edges and overall I was happy with the SQ.

So now I have had a proper listen with PE *on* and I now have to change my position it is without doubt better. So just now I am listening with Q1=14 and SFS=50 (and I might reduce that further) and now no problem at all the SQ is fine. At last I know what the problem is.

So a change in position for me PE will remain *on*. And I do not have to worry about the decoupling caps at all now - everything sounds superb here I mean really special now.

So now what to do - oh yes back to my new hobby of listening to music. Maybe I can take up drum lessons again and get rid of that soldering iron.

There has just been a knock at the door and two men in white coats are there - my wife says that it will be for the best if I go away with them. I tried to explain to them but they just nod and smile - !!!!!!!

But then there is just that bit of excitement with PE *off* those dynamics (maybe false). Arrrggghhh

At least you all must understand? - don't you?

Paul

I'd like to cast my vote on PE in the *OFF* state.   (So I'm not talking about PE=on at all)

I much prefer the sound of PE *OFF* as implemented in 0.9z-7-4

which I think means that data is multiplied  by 1.001 to overcome a compiler  bug.

Here it is night and day.

Hi Charlie - I am using 9z-7-5 with PE *Off* it adds an edge to the music which I like. Cymbols and drums particularly sound more alive more lifelike more zip.

With PE *On* the sound is just a bit too smooth. However with really poor recordings (like some of the early digital transfers) I use PE *On* just take the edge of the sound.

Maybe switching PE *Off* is a bit like squeezing lemon on fish it does not ruin the taste of the fish it just brings it alive.

Hey Paul,

You may not like it, but I solved the bug (finally) for the next version ... :yes:

Regards,
Peter

PE off is way too forward and edgy in my system.

Praphan

Me too. Hey, I know its a little late, but you guys are all invited over next week for the Thanksgiving holiday......tip a glass to Obama's re-election. Oh, wait, maybe I need to talk to my wife first.....

Brian

I know what you mean - but I am caught between "too smooth" and "edgy" gggrrrhhh.


Peter - so does that mean it was not a compiler problem after all? or have you found a way round the compiler problem?

It was not a compiler problem, but a most indirect issue I couldn't see (through) all the time. Yep, I'm somewhat embarrassed.

But don't you worry about something which sounds better while it's actually distorting. Other means are underway ...
ha ha

Peter

Hi Scroobius - I do exactly the same thing as above, all of it.  And on my system, PE *Off* gives it a tube-clarity type of sound.  It turn PE off when I want to hear that sound.

But look at this, one night I installed new speaker cables and my whole system went brighter.  That night, PE *On* with ArcP at 2x sounded best, otherwise it was too edgy.   So things change depending on system components.   Everyone here already knows this, hence all the different settings you see.