XXHighEnd

So yes, there finally is one :


Ultra low power supply everywhere (USB Interface, Clock Section, DAC, Gain Stage).

New audio oscillators.

100% isolation of USB Interface and DAC with zero added jitter by the isolation by means of game changing "invention".

Net peak-peak jitter at the input of the D/A chips went down from 210ps to (way) less than 13ps (13ps can be regarded the limit of the analyser used). In RMS jitter this will be (way) less than 1.625ps. See the "jitter" topic for this.

No influence of the PC any more. This also means no XXHighEnd dials influencing any more.

Better DC Offset Control because of the elimination of one formerly separate ground forming point (now only one remains).

A total of 4 newly added PCBs will do all this.


What will happen to your NOS1 ?

The power supply in the left leg will be removed and replaced by an ultra low noise regulator with measured positive rail supply noise of ~2uV.

The power supply to the actual DAC board will be through an ultra low noise regulator of ~1.5uV for both the positive and negative rail.

The power supply to the Gain Stage will be through a separate ultra low noise regulator of ~1.5uV for both the positive and negative rail (no feedback from the DAC board's supply possible).

The DAC board will receive another PCB on top of it that from now on being the "clock section". The both oscillators on it will receive their supply from yet another ultra low noise regulator of ~1.4uV (positive rail) with no back or forth feedback to the DAC board.

The both oscillators (one for 44.1KHz base and one for 48KHz base) will mutually be powerd down when the "other base" is in order. Thus also no feedback possible from the respective other oscillator.
To shut down the respective oscillator, a new version (1.04) of the Phasure NOS1 Driver is required when your NOS1 is used outside of XXHighEnd.

The output voltage and maximum current possibilities of the main (shunt) PSU will be changed to the now required needs.

New (more) wiring will emerge between the USB Interface and DAC board.

The oscillators will move from the USB board to the new top DAC board (and will change type along the way).

The output terminals will move position to the left (seen from the back side).
The holes now emerging will be nicely closed.

The CPLD ("FPGA") on the DAC board will receive a new program.

There will be an "A" signature on the front in between the legs.

There is more detail hardly worth mentioning because you are not interested - like input capacitors needing to move from the one PCB to the other or other wiring and connectors needing change. Still, that too consumes time to perform.
Anyway envision that your complete NOS1 needs to be taken apart for this in the first place and that it has to be re-assembled afterwards. All of it (ok, not the display).


Functional Merits

First off, the crazy thing : While XXHighEnd was made to influence the DAC for the better, this "software playback" influence is now out of the equation. Of course, right from the start (at designing D/A converters) I have been trying this, and now it finally works out.
Although you don't know it, two very different kind of DACs have been designed in the past two years (up and running) with the same objective, but THIS is now about how you NOS1 owners can upgrade to that situation. The approach is very different now (and the most new) and I guess it could only emerge from the experience of the past two years.
Again, you don't know a thing about this ...

While software can not influence any more, the PC itself can't either. In the end this is logic (at least to me), but notice that things like a Silverstone USB3 card also lost their influence. Or USB2 vs USB3 for that matter. Or BIOS settings. Devices shut off. Name it.
There is just no electrical connection any more between the PC and the DAC;

Everybody will say easily "yes of course, because isolation is isolation, right ?". Well, true in itself, but if it were that simple it would have been in the first NOS1 to begin with. And don't you think I haven't been working on that right from the start (like about Adnaco glass interfaces which (as a few know by now) also fail. Thus, 100% isolated for sure, but *such* isolation only makes it worse.
Side note : I am pretty confident that for the NOS1a such a glass interface can be applied now, hence it would allow you to have the NOS1a on quite some distance from the PC and nothing will deteriorate.

Without having said it explicitly, it will be clear to you that no USB interface "tweaks" etc., or USB cables for that matter, will influence one tiny bit from now on.

Done with the tweaking - just good sound.

Ehm, THE BEST SOUND.
Oh yes, it matters. Say that it can matter to the degree you are used to from one setting (or tweak) to the other, but now a much bigger step and to the better direction only;
As often I don't have words for it, so I hope you will just trust me. But it is better-better-better.

This "better" has been apporached from all angles possible, mainly thinking from my ever so often brought forward "noise" subject and how less noise can imply less good SQ because of now remaining more distinct frequencies. Well, for those who can make out merits of supply noise : that is now way UNDER the output noise of the DAC. So the 8uV (or something like that) measured at the output is not related much to the "incoming" supply noise, however, the supply noise is detrimental to jitter at various places (but think oscillators to begin with). Now, supply noise previously superseded the DAC's output noise by far, while now it is 1.5uV (RMS) only (think around -160dB).
Notice that two years ago this would not have been possible to achieve because of new components (think chips) available now.
For insiders : For minus supply voltage to go this low no components are available, so this was self-created.

So what does this by now mil-spec machine bring us ?

For the obvious part : I can run my processor at any speed I like, I can leave on the LAN, I can play Attendedly - I can do anything to my convenience.

And the expected part : SQ is increased by so many miles that it is hard to bring across. More (SPL) highs are pushed out than ever before while at the same time totally nothing is hurting. Somehow it is all about balance and don't ask me how it is possible that e.g. 70's music had covered up so much good highs like better than today's (without replaying today's for comparison). Things changed into creapingly real and the difference between any drumming heard and our son's practicing has been diminished to undisturbing (really so !). The real "un-difference" still comes from my self-recording of the drumming, but this is because I can compare it back-to-back.

For the past couple of months I had to lie somewhat or keep quiet where I said something anyway, but I had this running in lab-setup for these couple of months with all sorts of trial PCBs and wires to plug all together, while now all is running from the meant final PCBs and ... working. This latter part was related to the thrill of lab setups working while the real thing for example was about the shut off of respective oscillators which could not be simulated. So now you also know why my sampling rate was fixed to one rate only and for those who got that : how I had to break-in a new DAC because I needed the old one for XXHighEnd measurements etc. Meanwhile there was no way to revert to my old NOS1 for listening because the difference with this "NOS1a" is just too huge.

What's next ?
:)
Peter

Price for the upgrade!!!

Haha, that didn't take long ...

When this was worked out at first I really wanted to have that a 1000 euro or less but this can't go. There is really too much work involved let alone all the work that *has* be done. But as usual I don't count that anyway (but still like to mention it :heat:)
Also, if I relate it to the ever back 1000, then compared to that something like 145 euros on more (relatively expensive) additional components had to be used since then.

If I say 1225 (edit : this is ex VAT for those liable to it) I'm afraid that I will be sorry forever but if only one of you does it it will be no pain (haha). Anyway, I rather make many of you happy with an all "new" NOS1 and amazingly better sound after finally finding the path how to do it - than while "without pain for sure" all has been without reason (because too expensive and nobody does it).
Well, I always have it for myself. ;)

Before people ask ...
I don't see it happening that this can be a "DIY" project; there is just way too much work involved to begin with (we estimate it for ourselves on two days outside of soldering the new PCBs). Also there's parts changing which influence THD when not done right and it really needs measurement to check that (and you won't be able to).
More technically ... there is some resoldering needed of SMD parts and some people already know how easy it is to accidentally remove the "pads" from the PCB and next you will not be able to recover from that. Lastly desoldering of things with several pins at the same time is needed (think "headers") and you really need equipment for that.
So I tried, surely thought if it explicitly, but DIY can't work.

Peter

I'm definitely in... When can I send my NOS1 to you? Next week? No problem.

Mani.

People,

Maybe I am premature, but with by now 3 persons subscribing for the upgrade I has to be clear that this all has to be carefully planned. For example, I just told that it takes us 2 days to perform all what's needed, this would be absolute time like 16 hours in a row. But some times there is more to do, plus there is packing etc. and I don't really count in failed measuering and some more;

What I want to say is, if we over here take it more easy than 3 days should be more normal throughput time for one upgrade only. So with just 3 persons only this is 9 days already and might you think to send in your NOS1 quickly to be a fourth for sure, well, you will be without music for 12 days already.
And just saying : In the past it happened that people sent in their NOS1's just like that (unannoinced), hoping for the best. This might have worked out in the past for a 1 day "minor" job, but not this time. Thus, approach it like that and you will be just at the end of the list because I can't do it to others that they have to wait for you only because you decided to be "fast".
So please do not do that, Ok ?

Otherwise, well, the job as a whole could be quite gigantic; if I only count 50 people to do it (and sneakily not informing those who never look in the forum anyway) it is a 150 working day job which in my math comes down to 30 weeks in a row.
So yes, this is a bit of a poblem.
But maybe only 10 do it.
(maybe because a 4th just announced himself).

All the best to all,
Peter

Oh, in case it is not clear :
I am keeping an honest list of people "subscribing" regarding the sequence. Please trust me with that.

Peter

Hi Peter,

What will be the situation for new NOS1 orders?
Price and availability?

Regards, Arjan

Arjan,

I started typing an answer yesterday but a decent answer is not so simple at this moment. I am working on it, probably for later today. So don't think I forgot about you ...

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,
  Very excited to wake up and read this!  I'm quite interested in sending the Ferrari back to you for the upgrade.  I have that Benchmark DAC so I wouldn't be music-less no matter how long the upgrade took.

Assuming this needs a new OSX driver?  Any ETA on that?

Also assuming the XXHE PC with Arc Prediction would still be superior due to better filters, but will be interesting to compare the two regardless.

Matt

Hi there Matt. On the list as #12. :)

The Mac driver is something to work out yet and it could be a problem. But what's a problem is a challenge.

Best regards and thanks !
Peter

OK Peter
Put me on the list. You can give me pricing and ETA when convenient but I want to be in the "que"

Fred

Very nice Fred !
You are 15.

BBQ time ! ;)
(well, not so much over here)

Peter

Hi Peter,

Can you add me to your list ? I suppose I could send it when you will notify me with some advance, since there will be the transportation time...

I am excited, but for the time being, I will put some money aside :)

Will you put all the info needed (address and all) somewhere ?

And finally (...) What is your advice about leaving the NOS1 floating on liquid, so it will better endure the shocks while being returned to you ? ;)

And if you can explain how to electrically isolate ourself from certain emotions, it would be a bonus ;)

Regards,

Alain

Good morning there Alain. #17 you are.


Well, of course we have trucks with air suspension (planes inherently have that) but water suspension ? maybe not. Otoh you can send it by boat I think.


This could be an even more tough one. But I was thinking of this :
(and thanks !)

Ha ! I see that you have changed the NOS1 exterior look also ! Nice ;)

So after being a "sweet sixteen" some eons ego, I will be the "sweet seventeen" :)

I now see the NOS1 as "the real source" :)

Thanks :)

Hmmm, how to ask a question without (necessarily) expecting a reply?!  I know, a wish list.  It sure would be nice (timely?) to have up to 8 channels available for the NOS1a (daughtercard?).

Drats, I just threw out those big cardboard boxes saying to myself, "what's the likelihood of me sending this back to Peter".  Figures!   ...Let me know if/when you have a separate plan for the NOS1a upgrade for North America.  Perhaps swapping to a prebuilt NOS1a might work, etc.?

TNX

Hey there Bruno,


For now outside your other question ... why exactly would you need that ? Or is it about the box ? (ehm, LOL ?)

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter, please put me on your upgrade list :)

Wolfgang

Dear Wolfgang,

Apparently this upgrade makes people post for the first time !
I can say "a warm welcome" to you of course, but you already were for a longer time.

#22 on the list and thanks !
Kind regards,
Peter

Peter, you never fail to surprise me! Perhaps this means that I may have to consider purchasing a new NOS1a some time in the next year. I wonder what a new one will cost given that building a new one will not entail retooling one that already exists.

And then there are, of course, questions like what would be the benefit of an XXHE PC if the PC doesn't matter, and what will be the benefit of XXHE vs. other music software if XXHE tweaks don't matter. Would a low powered PC or Mac suffice if the PC truly doesn't matter? Would software like Amarra or j river work for those of us interested in more spouse friendly options(keeping in mind that Amarra has built in room correction software)?

With FPGA being the new audio software favorite, are we looking at a DAC without a DAC chip like the new PS Audio DAC or does the 1a still use the chip in the NOS1(e.g., the Auralic Vega uses FPGA in association with its DAC chip - and here is where all comparisons are meant to end).  Hmmm.

Esau

Just read the posts on jitter: the power of the PC DOES matter. My bad.

Esau

Hey there Esau,


Then I must have written something strange because it does not matter (that I can see).

Regards,
Peter

I think Esau is talking about the CPU and the PC's general performance, and not the PC's power supply. The PC's speed still matters from a usability perspective.

Mani.

Grrr ...
I am sure he does.

:sorry:

Hi Peter,

Once my surprise has gotten to a level I can manage (...), there are still some questions for me to be answered.

You mentionned that as a hobby, most tweaks would not work anymore and in a sense, this is a dream come true for those who prefer a "plug it and forget it". In a way, for a guy like me, there are some aspects of this that I could not easily grasp.

Add to this that SQ will increase again and you will not only make my day, but my months, my years... And my ears :)

But some notions have escaped me (this is an understatement) in the process. I have thought that noise (born from all situations that occur inside a PC) was taking any path that would be easy for it to take. So, since the PC is connected to the NOS1 with a USB cable, the data line would already be carrying noise that has nothing to do with the signal itself. Even if someone was using an optical device (like Adnaco), the noise "within" the signal would also go to the dac no ?

Following this logic (probably from my confused understanding), it made sense to reduce all that could generate this noise in a PC (Minimize OS, stop many services, underclock the CPU, play unattended, avoid networking, even use a linear PSU, etc...).

If I recall, there is inherent noise related to USB protocol and if there is also noise with the signal path, how does your modifications be stopping this from altering the dac ?

I could of course tell myself that even if I don't understand, the results will be there, but it would help me if I just could eliminate from my mind a part of these questions that have been there for years. Or at least, I will stop having erroneous perceptions about the noise running everywhere, taking any path it can...

Regards,

Alain

So Alain, you have been thinking eh ?
Very nice/good questions but answer will take longer and that needs to be later. So I'll be back ...

TII

Hey Alain, for what it's worth, here's my analogy for what is going on...

Consider that I have an ultra-sensitive measuring instrument (interferometer, or whatever) placed on a suspended wooden floor [usb link]. I notice there is too much vibration [usb noise] coming through the wooden floors [usb link]. So, I spend a fortune on isolation stands [usb filters, etc]. [Edit: I spend a fortune trying different floors (USB cables).] I also minimize all the vibrations by re-routing all the traffic outside [minimize PC noise]. But only then a genius [Peter] comes and tells me to place the instrument onto a wall bracket [total isolation]. Let the floor vibrate as much as it wants and let the traffic flow - it won't affect, it can't affect my instrument anymore.

OK, not a great analogy. But I hope you know what I mean.

Mani.

Hi Mani,

I think I understand :) And there the dreaded "But ?" intervenes :)
Of course, the better I manage to isolate from the vibrations, the better the results. I could even put my device in another room where the vibrations will be attenuated, but vibrations are from everywhere, even if they don't come directly from the speakers ?

We tend to think (correctly) that vibrations will come from our speakers and from what I have read there will be a lot of them coming from the marvelous pair of speakers you (I hope soon) will receive, but... There are still other vibrations that will affect the wall, the floor (inaudible, but measurable) and all that sits or is ankored somewhere.

The analogy with electricity could be that though the work done to eliminate as much vibrations as possible, there will still be some left. I know we know that it will be reduced to a point not attained up to now, but still there is potential ?

Let's say that I have a capacitor that is "singing" (I am really not sure of this example) or there is a high frequency in the AC because of a switching power supply... ?

In the PC, a measuring device would go crazy (I guess), so since electricity is fluctuating due to different forms of current draws (that we have been fighting against for years now), how does this translate in the link between our two devices ? This link is a path and what we call the "signal" and what could be called the "efforts" done by all the components in the PC to generate, process and send this signal...

English is not my first language, so sorry if I sound strange with my questions...

Ultimately there is one thing I believe. We will hear the results of Peter's hard work and this is high "gastronomy" :)

I just hope that my NOS1 will not get sick in the transit :)

Regards,

Alain

Edit: If I am right, the best way to do things (apart from what this will bring) is to "eliminate" the noise at the source... Well, this is how I understood what needs to be done in hi-fi... At other times, the turntable was the "source", but now with all this loudness war (compression, clipping), we know that the studio manipulation is at the "source"... So if the source is bad, the rest will suffer to a certain level...

Maybe I lack many details in my questions and attempts to answer them (in my mind), but since "the results will be the one from the weakest link" and the PC would be that weakest link (as it probably always have been)...

So my take would be "Well, if I persist in using Minimize OS, go unattended, use the non persistent network only for loading music, it should not be harmful no ?"...

Lots of questions :( I suppose some tweaks will not be effective anymore, but maybe a few left will still be in order ?

I think ultimately Peter has shifted his approach from one of manipulating the USB noise inevitably getting into the DAC (via all the XX dials and settings) to one of making the DAC totally immune to this noise (without affecting the sound). The noise is still there. But now it just doesn't matter, even if there is more actually a lot more noise. The DAC remains totally immune.

From a psychological perspective it'll probably take a few of us (including me) a while to accept that the computer no longer makes a difference. But I'm all for it, as it opens the way to do some interesting (potentially CPU-intensive) stuff in software before sending to the DAC.

Mani.

I'm talking about things like digital crossovers and DSP built into XX. This would potentially take some serious CPU power if done in real time.

Ultimately, what I like about this approach (i.e. making DAC immune to noise, vs. reducing and/or filtering the noise) is that it allows the PC to be a PC - the wonderful, flexible machine that it is - rather than a high-end transport.

Mani.

Peter, I have a quick question:

Is the NOS1a now galvanically isolated from the PC? In an ideal world, I would want to power the PC from a totally different AC circuit. Not necessarily for the sake of the NOS1a (with its superb voltage regulation), but for the sake of the amps at least.

Mani.

Hi,

vibrations are not the main problem, resonances of the internal components or tonearm etc. are causing the degration of SQ.
The optimum is to locate all the gear in the next room, but who has ............ . So, everything else is a compromise.
Are we all hunting for the "absolute sound" and overreacting?

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

I know where you are coming from :) Of course, "absolute" cannot be, but I was relating this to Mani's example (or metaphor) to illustrate Peter's breakthrough... While vibrations is of concern (as Peter has showed), electrical noise is and will always be a concern, up to a certain extent... And a PC is full of noise than can transmit through any cable and through other conductive material...

Alain

So Alain, here we go ...


To first answer Mani's question : Yes, it is totally galvanically isolated.
But e.g. the Adnaco is that too ...

Now Alain, your perception of the data already carrying the noise is in itself correct. But I don't think this is what I myself ever brought forward as "the reason of". So, of course I have seen many of you debating these kind of issues and it is not so that I have intervened in all occasions, just because it was not relevant. Still, to hopefully keep it in an understandable realm, first about that :

When noise would be obtained in that "data" (so think plus and ground to carry data, no matter it's within a glass wire) it would only be about deterioration of the "digital" signal. Digital signal : for your comfort think about 0V and 2V going On and Off where On means a "bit up" and Off means a bit not-up (down).
All what happens when this is noisy is that the moment it is seen that the bit is up or down varies somewhat. of course everybody right away says "jitter !!" but this is not so with genuine computer data. Oh, it is, but it is not important because there is a relative huge time allowed to detect whether the but is up or down and although jittery, to interpret the state of the bit is just not related. It doesn't do a thing, unless you see your Word document have different characters when more lag etc. But it doesn't.

When this would be an electrically connected signal, the noise as such actually is (also) in the ground. It is *there* where things go "wrong" because the ground is connected to everything. Again for your comfort (thus simply said), when the noise is in the ground it will also affect an oscillator also connected to that ground. And NOW it implies jitter, because of the clock can not have its bits up and down in stable fashion, then this affects the audio which it is controlling for "output speed".
(btw, we don't talk "bits" when it is about feeding oscillators with power but it doesn't matter because in the end ALL is analogue signal).

So, "when electrically connected" eh ? And what about the galvanically isolated glass connection then ?
It is here where it does not matter whether you see noise in the signal as real or not, because it now about "the other end" (DAC) where super noise is implied by the means to convert the data back to electrical. It is very simple : all "draw", no matter how minor, implies noise. Notice though that "noise" as such is just peaks (or merely dips) in the supply. And it again deteriorates the signal like "for an oscillator" (signal = supply here).

On a side note, I think I also never talked about this exactly either, because it is sufficient to think that noise is there (thus also glass) anyway and that it deteriorates. All I did (and fairly explicitly) was promising that it would not help (glass isolation for USB interface), right ?
So again, at that other end is some receiver "pumping" and at each stroke it creates noise. That yet a power brick may again inject noise of different type is something else, but it is already too late.

With the notice that I won't tell all because I like to keep some secrets (next Swenson Article coming up of course  ;)) ... the galvanic isolation in itself is not so difficult to implement. And, I am sure that more DAC manufacturers claim it. It is only that we must realize that ALL isolation implies jitter. The one type more of it than the other, but 100% sure all do. This is because they imply (almost explicitly "create") lag, and the lag is not per any definition 100,000000000% constant. So it can be 99,99999999% but that soon implies over 100ps of jitter (but merely at the ns level when not careful). This counts for digital isolation means but even more for analogue. The latter because a transformer as analogue means is not linear and it thus depends on "frequency". And several different frequencies exist. But also think about "click through" like how a magnet suddenly hooks in. This also counts for transformers (sginal comes up, pushes and ... ploop - through !). So here too, undefined varying lag (= jitter).

With galvanic isolation - at least the type we apply - the ground potential does not need to be the same at either side. From this you can already see that the signal is actually re-generated. So, we have a noisy part on one side (USB, via glass or not) and we have a super silent - to our best means - environment at the other side. Meanwhile the "captured" signal literally is re-generated. This could be seen as the part where the noise disappears; a deteriorated signal (by noise) is incoming, while a clean signal comes out at the other side. It is as clean as the re-generator can do it, and here starts the ultra low supply necessity. But this is obvious I think.

What should be obvious by now as well is how whatever noise patterns implied by USB or software and PC in front of that, just is not possible to influence. It's just a totally new signal but "triggered" by the old (bits up remain that, bits down the same).
But now jittery because of the isolation means itself.


So that should be clear(ed) now.

How the jitter is cleared is something else, and any self-respecting DAC manufacturer who reads this will say something like "easy". Well, let's say that if that were true you would have had it in your own NOS1 right form the start. That is, assumed now that I already tried to figure it out before a first went out and that I really tried to think of everything and all, and still could not find a solution. So I'm dumb. But hey, look at the whole world who thinks that the glass solution will also work. Or in front of that, how asynch USB will do the job to begin with. So indeed, we know more and I hope I know more to than just being dumb;

I think I also talked about other developments the past two years (into physical working products) which contained the solution as well. Such a solution in particular could have been applied by any DAC manufacturer with some real sitting back, thinking and being smart. Still, that too doesn't even happen, or -as said earlier on- I should have had reports about XXHighEnd not doing a thing. Or what about "Rankin" expressions "I don't understand it either and jitter keeps on leaking through, no matter what I do". But still, such a fairly common solution could have been applied. Not this one. This one is so sneaky that even sneaky me could hardly come up with it;
It takes knowledge of why it is needed in the first place (think XXHighEnd development where all starts) and what would be useful and especially what not. It also requires explicit thinking about what will influence and what can-not. It needs quite explicit knowledge of where to be in the electrical chain and how to turn that upside down when needed. It especially needs the experience (and now knowledge) of how already a Juli@ stupid card can do 705600 while it only does 192000 (I say 705600 and not 768000 because there was a bandwidth limiting chip somewhere). And still I did not write drivers for that. It definitely requires the knowledge of how a USB protocol operates in the first place, or better, how audio is "controlled" by it. In the end it needs so many tricks that I regard myself the only one who already ran into such individual tricks and only needed to combine them. That too requires some twirly thinking, but I can do that. Just grab a beer.
In the end it also needs the equipment to prove a few things, and at least for me that has been the worst part. But OK now.

This all is not about galvanic isolation but it is about jitter. And how you to the extreme want to turn that low without having mil spec oscillators in ovens requiring 2 Amperes for the heat to begin with. This, accidentally, came forth from the DSD development (:swoon:) where I simply forced myself to have the jitter lower as the sampling rate of that is higher. Just to have the jitter performance equal of what we are used to (whatever that was). This in itself was a year of throughput. And still that general means everybody could have come up with and/but still not the very best.
So I'll end with this :

Any normal means would make use of a PLL (Phase Locked Loop) with the key issue of having that lot out of the noise because noise again implies jitter. The PCB for that alone ? quite complicated and around twice as large as your current DAC board. But it would have worked. There would be pairs of voltage tunable oscillators (a PLL is not *that* complicated) with the downside of such VCXOs not being the very best.
Here ? here is just only the normal audio oscillators and they are as fixed as can be and with that the best.
By guarantee there is just no single means "available" that hammers upon the oscillator(s) or draws current from the same supply line, with one small exception : The FPGA where all passes through to clock out the samples. Sadly I can't find jitter figures of FPGA's so that's a nice laugh. Or not, because I can't measure it either. But maybe new (finding) : nobody can unless heavy analog filtering is in order. So briefly about this I guess new to the world finding :

No matter what means are used at the outputs (!) of a DAC, this can not be measured for jitter. Why ? well, because the stepping that digital implies always vary over the wave cycle and no analyzer will be able to trigger on that at 100.000000% even time constant. Do it via the frequency domain, same story. So, THD will vary just because the distortion varies and the distortion varies because the triggering can't be constant. And want to know some fun ? When decent digital filtering is applied the samples for the high (!) frequencies DO end up at constant positions, THD looks better because of that compared to lower frequencies (huhhh ???) and now jitter will also measure better. Now that.
So yes, give me a new toy like that extreme high bandwidth analogue scope and it doesn't take minutes to discover such a thing. This, while it is so logical ... (now I know it). But do that with a digital analyzer and it will apply some math, make something of it and then plots something for you. :seeyou:
Well, didn't I tell you.
And never ever I read something about this, so ... new again.

But it sadly means that no jtter can be measured at the output of a DAC unless through capacitors (singing ;)) and thus even means of digital filtering which influence that, but won't say a thing about reality on jitter.
Same of course with my telling about the FPGA being behind the oscillator(s) but I can always hop over to the bit clock pin of the D/A chip. But later.


Hey Alain, was this something for a suitable answer ?
Best regards and thanks for the 100% justified good questions and pose,
Peter

Alain, all of Peter's above post is exactly what I meant with my analogy  :prankster:

Mani.

Haha...

Mani.

Mani,


So with the question by now answers with Yes, the remainder I am uncertain about. Or at least at this moment. There are two reasons for this :

1.
Generally it is my finding - and next my idea - that having two interconnected devices powered by separate ground (PE) potential is not good. So potential of the one is e.g. 50V just because you "do" that yourself but depending on what's all connected (like it was 107V or whatever over here) ... while that other ring is "empty" and initially is 0V. PC may imply 10V or whatever, but now the remainder 40V will flow over USB and this time not over PE - just saying.

2.
Because it is still so that the USB connection is quite a necessity to maintain stability for DC Offset, in combination with #1 I don't know what will come from *that*.

In the end it is somewhat more complicated (if not enough already) because to either side of the isolation there's a similar potential difference and somewhere this meets up again. On such matter I was even sure real isolation could not even work at all but *that* does not seem to be a problem.

I really don't know ...
But I also see no reason for it. So that is something else. This does not tell that what you foresee is not justified. The less backfired sh*t the better and as you can see in my recent "noise graphs" (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2963.0) of the supplies, you can see that it catches some (lets some through) ...

Peter

This is probably a stupid question but hey what the heck I will ask anyway. So the input is "noisy" and by that I read "jitter" and on the output clean ie virtually no jitter because it is regenerated. BUT the "regenerator" has to take its trigger points (i.e. the points at which it triggers up & down signals on the clean output) from the jittery input. Doesn't that mean that in the output signal the positive and negative going "edges" are mostly in the wrong place? So although there is little measured jitter it is actually embedded in the output.

Cheers

Paul

Haha Paul, no, if you pose it like that it's no wonder you can't understand or see (through). But this is why the question is not stupid at all (btw, I learned that questions are never stupid - only answers can be, so careful now).

To also serve people who might read this accidentally and who know about the basics, it is best to say that this is not in the jitter domain (sounds expensive but it is still the best way to express it).


Correct.


Well, it is too easy to "read" that, and this is the problem. It will create jitter once such signal is dealt with in the digital domain. The digital domain can be seen as where the bits (audio words) need to convert to analogue audio signal. This happens in the D/A chips, and this is "clocked" by the oscillator (this latter is somewhat earlier in the stage because the oscillator runs at fixed speed while a speed must be derived for the chosen sampling rate and the result of that is named the bit clock);

Suppose the oscillator sits on its very own island beach and is self supplied. All runs well and it is as stable as its self supply. A sailing boat comes in (audio signal) and it is supposed to throw oranges from the boat into the forest behind it where the catchers can't see the throwing. But both parties agreed by timing so the clock knows exactly when to throw and the catchers know exactly when to catch. It goes blindfolded.
Each orange caught is confirmed by a Yo! That Yo!-Yo!-Yo! sounds perfectly timed. Well, is supposed to do so.

However, because of the boat coming in, the oscillator's feet get wet by the surfs of the boat and besides that the sail stays up and the wind moves the boat randomly and thus the surfs are there randomly. The oscillator is pushed forward and drawn backward and although a few cm only that implies a time difference to the catchers and the catchers start to have difficulty with that timing. They still catch the oranges (no error) but the rhythm of the Yo!-Yo!-Yo! is audibly not so good any more.

Because the oscillator likes to swing on the Yo! which makes it even more stable it thinks of an isolation means; It builds a small dam right in front of it parallel to the beach and when now the boat causes surfs these surfs are stopped by the dam; this doesn't make its feet wet or make it move. It still can grab the oranges from over the dam and although it needs to reach somewhat which takes some time, it is fast enough to cover for that and all what changes is that it starts moving earlier compared to the old situation plus the agreed "Start !" towards the catchers stays at the same moment in time which thus is when it starts first moving. This change in time is covered for by agreement with the catchers and that from now on the first orange will arrive 3ns later after the Start message of the oscillator.

The Yo!-Yo!-Yo! is perfectly timed and because the oscillator itself is not disturbed by irregular feedback of the catchers, it swings and swings and swings at the exact same rhythm of the Yo!'s.

:heat:

Nor the boat, nor the surfs caused by the boat itself were jitter. Either caused jitter though in this story and when carefully thought over you can wonder which causes actually what first (to imagination).


That's because you put someone with a cricket bat on the boat itself to smash the oranges into the wood. Further explanation fails because the isolation is not in the jitter domain. It can only prevent it happening. However, we can continue the story somewhat because of this wrong pose :

The man with the bat, an oscillator himself, can climb on the dam which is a floating dam. He grabs the oranges from the boat and smashes them into the wood. However, because the dam is floating the dam moves when he smashes and although his timing is not subject to the surfs caused by the boat he now himself causes instability; the self resonance of the dam is no way his own frequency and the back and forth forces interfere. This becomes especially apparent when it is agreed that once per 32 oranges an apple is to be thrown to a special catcher who is to shout "Hey !!". The apple can only be thrown by a second pitcher and he creates his own additional force on the dam;
Although this in itself is not much of a culprit when it is agreed that the 2nd "word" pitcher doesn't like to hear the Yo!'s at all and the bit-pitcher can do what he want, there is a sort of problem when the word pitcher counts the bit pitcher's smashes so he can smash his apple at each 32nd orange. How ? because now all the movement of the bit pitcher which will never allow the dam to be in resonance with the moves of the word pitcher - will position the word pitcher in an always different position when it is his turn. Besides that, he now too is troubled with the "Hey!" not being in exact intervals and he can't concentrate because of that.

:whistle:

This pretty much covers all with the last story telling about what happens when only an isolator is used and nothing else; it surely eliminates the cause to jitter further down the line, but it IS jittery itself just the same;

100% of DAC manufacturers will understand the story while 90% of DAC manufacturers (or all of them) may now think "oh sh*t" depending  on how much jitter they allow for or to what degree they even know what's caused. So do notice that the story is only complete when it is explained how it is arranged for that the empty boat is replaced by a full one without interruption of the Hey! which is the real audio;
I won't make (up) stories about that, but I sure made it.

Peter

Very good story, Peter.
I enjoyed it! :thankyou:

Hi Peter,

Wow, that is more than the customer asked :), but it is a lot clearer now ! I understand between noise that is inherent and noise that is "inserted" and/or "added" :thankyou:

I am not aware of any manufacturer taking the time to explain like you do !  :blob8:

And I also liked the "Yo" and "Hey" scenario you created to explain how things happen; it really is a nice story. I read it with a lot of fun  :toomuch:

I even caught the "Thanks Alain" from the picture of that lady over a... "Tank" of water  :rofl:

As for Mani, yes you summarized it very well too  :biglol:

Another rainy day here, but wil what I learned, I feel emotionaly isolated from these grey noisy clouds ;) I can now "upsample" myself over them  :blink:

Regards,

Alain 

When can we expect to hear positive feedback about these new upgrades from units that have been worked on and reinstalled back into the owners systems.?

I am sure AC cables will still make a difference as usual on the Dac/PC yes?

DAC - as usual. PC ?

Tomorrow we are going to apply some final wire construction and assumed that all works out as intended, the first people will be invited to send in their DACs.
But I'll let know about that in this topic. :yes:

Peter

Besides the computer leaving a noise spectrum on the mains possibly disturbing the power amplifiers, I wondered if a SSD as OS Disk is now an option wrt maintaining the superb NOS1a SQ....

The potential speed increase may be worth the hassle of installing windows one more time.

regards, Coen

Coen,


I see no reason why this would still be harmful.


Ahum. Not that I thought about THAT.
:aggressive:

Next up : An isolator for the PC mains ?

...

Peter

I actually should have kept you posted about how it still takes "weeks" after all was set and only the final parts had to be bought in their needed quantities. But I didn't because each event in itself did not seem worth while. Maybe later when I can recall all. But the last one I won't hold from you. It is too crazy (or shameful) to actually tell about it :

So think of it. As announced today final wire arrangements were going to be set (should look neat, must be decent, must work, must be workable (don't underestimate this). This is about the interface connections. OK ...
So as I told in the OP I think, one of the things to be done is lengthen the internal audio wire connections to the output terminals. One of the stupid parts of it is how to close the now emerged holes nicely because the output terminals will change position. It was saved as the very last thing to do because what can go wrong with making new wires to the output connectors. So part of the day was spent on closing those holes invisibly.

Well, if you sit down to adapt the final first production version for this very last simple thing of new audio wiring - after finding the nice solution to close those holes, you ... find that you ran out of this wire.
Of course there was no alarm flag on that because dozens of these were preproduced and ... of course that preproduction stopped until the reel ran out. Just look at the shrinking pile of those wires plus connectors and when that starts to run out order a new reel.
Yes, nice.

*Of course * that's found out when all manufacturers of that wire need orders before 4pm to have it the next day, at ... 4:05pm. So no wire tomorrow either.

Such kind of things happen daily and actually I am waiting for still a next one. I can't think of one, but that already happened a week ago.

I could write a nice novell about it all.
:swoon:
Peter

Hi Peter,

You need a kind of warehouse and planning system.....
But I think you know these systems.

Regards, Arjan

Thanks Peter,

This opens the doorway to a giant leap in responsiveness!


Maybe the linear supply helps out here. That is, it is much less directly coupled to the mains with that nice filter called a transformer.
Further down that road we could envision a relatively powerfull and very low power "pc" running on batteries being totally decoupled from the mains...

Not totally scifi with the current enourmous research efforts in battery technology.
 A super low noise -solar charged- battery powered supply for the NOS1(b?) complement would create a completely mains independent system. Hmmm.

I get carried away, one step at a time!

Regards, Coen

So let's continue only this small one ...

Today still no wire. It came from a local supplier who could deliver the next day after ordering on Tuesday. So that was done ... he says. Called the bloke Wednesday and it already didn't sound good. He not, I mean. "Wait till 6pm, then I can call the shipper". And "no tracking data - this goes on the big pile". DHL ? Don't believe that. And "will sort it out tomorrow". Yes ? on a holiday ?

No answers to emails, no pickup of the phone any more today. Postponed holiday I suppose.
DHL knows nothing of any shipment to our address.

I think this can go in the books as the very first time I was hoaxed. I can have that for the 50 euros I paid for that reel. But that it out of all happens *now* ?

This afternoon we will get it from a normal physical shop. Two times that other price but alas.

Sorry people but it will be worth the waiting still ...
Regards,
Peter

I do believe this gives the SQ an extra boost!!

Joachim

It has to be Joachim ! More expensive wire is better SQ !
Always.

Ok, Ok!
Germans are not famous for their "jokes"!

Joachim

If you only understand the Dutch !
:)

But seriously ... I understand your response, but it really wasn't intended to come across as how you (always ?) see such responses. I wonder how others appreciate it ?
So in my view it must be the other way around. It is my (Dutch ?) jokes which don't come across.

So for the next time ...

Peter

Hi,
Today I heard about teleporting off data with quantum parts......
Maybe in the next NOS1b version no expensive wires are needed anymore.
Regards, Arjan

Hey Arjan, the NOS1b is a great idea. Who could argue with getting rid of ALL cables: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/science/scientists-report-finding-reliable-way-to-teleport-data.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article.
 Hey Peter, hope you'll have this figured out soon! :)

I got your joke Peter, loud and clear, I even had a chuckle...hehehe.

Re-set to zero !
The reel arrived today after all. Now what shall we make out of all that length ;) ...

Peter

Just to keep you updated ...

First NOS1a was just picked up (travels to the other side of the globe).

And what I did not know myself yet because previous measurements were taken from my pilot NOS1 all covered with measurement wires, well, look below. This is the output noise and there is just no single spur of 50Hz mains any more. Just nothing. Analyser is set to its best granularity which also relates to the bandwidth shown (1800Hz here though screenshot shows less).

Now I even myself say wow.
Peter

I thought to provide some pictures of the first finished NOS1a. Even with high resolution links to nicely zoom in if you want. Now you don't need to lift the cover right away in order to see what has been changed.
Notice : The blue output wires (those which didn't want to arrive) are folded back to let show better the things what it is about. So this looks a bit messy now; in practice it isn't.
Also, in the very left hand side of the first picture you see two (Elna) capacitors while it is one in practice.


(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/IMG_1053a.jpg) High Resolution link Phasure NOS1a 01 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/IMG_1053.jpg)






(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/IMG_1054a.jpg)  High Resolution link Phasure NOS1a 02 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/IMG_1054.jpg)

Peter hi,

I'm loving what you have done, the audio clock right next to the DACs and the USB interface slaved to these clocks, surely it cannot get better  :) and the output noise plot above WOW !

I think it's time to add me to the waiting list for the upgrade if you would please.

Best regards,

Nick.

Hey Peter, greetings from the UK... finally back at home! Unlike Nick, I have no comment on what you've done internally - I'm sure it's all been well thought through. But I love the external change. Now just because my NOS1 is white, I totally expect to see this on mine too.

Mani.

Mani, sorry, that can't be done with white sheep.

Haha... I love it!

Mani.

Stupid DAC this is ...

Maybe people recall that at some stage I started to use a new NOS1 and that I applied some "tweak" which right out pf the box already sounded better than my well burned in good old one. At the time I could not mention the "NOS1a" planned version, and at that time I could not even know that would succeed (but in lab setup it worked).
I forgot, but this is now something like two months ago.
Really really struggled the first few weeks, especially around day 5.
Since 3 weeks or so things seem stable and I think I hear improvement each day.

With all these upgrade arrangements of the past few weeks, a first two new ones were made (in NOS1a fashion). I couldn't do much with that other than checking/measuring all to infinity. Yesterday though a first upgraded one was finished, and that was a well burned in one - the one with the Golden a (picture in previous post). So I nicely asked Mani wheter it was allowed to officially listen to it.

OMG.

At really the very first note coming from it - a strike on a Spanish Guitar - I already saw how a 100 times more clear this burned in DAC is. Creepy to put it mildly.
Throughout the remainder of the evening I heard back the "infinite highs" (meaning : can't go wrong no matter how loud). But also way more bass energy. Shaking actually. Dangerously loud.
Side note for Arjan : Remember that small piece of Gregorian we played ? that now hammers on the chest with its maybe 70Hz background (???) organ.

So ... I already told it a couple of times ... When you play something after a year into your NOS1 which you only played in the beginning after the 30 day burn in period, it comes to you as a "what has changed ?!?". And I just experienced that still crazy difference. How fuzzy that 60 day burned in still sounds ...

Now I have to ask PeterSt ... Can I be on the list to have my blue NOS1 upgraded to NOS1a please ?
Thank you,
Peter

Haha! Just wait in line with the rest of us!

Now the big question is: what will it sound like when the upgrade itself is burned-in.... :)

Conclusions after another 12 month?

regards, Coen

:)

I solved the solution of being at the end of the list :
Each day a NOS1a upgrade is finished I first measure it and then use it for the night for listening; When we're out of upgrades to do, it will be my turn automatically.
:yes:
Peter

So speaking of NOS1a upgrades and the list. How far along are we? Of course what I really mean is where am I on the list now :innocent:  :pardon:

You are all making me eager and impatient with these SQ posts :soundsgood:

Hi Fred and everyone,

We barely started and today only a 4th will go out (2 of those were new ones). So Fred, you were 15th and now you should be the 13th on the list.

By now I think we can say that we can do 2 in 3 working days (so one takes 1.5 day). But this assumes no problems to begin with and it is not correct to assume this is always so.

What I also saw by now is that planning all in a fashion that people are out of music for a minimum number of days is tough. I mean, it is quite out of control what all shipping times are from all over the world and I feel that everybody should be asked one week in advance to official working-on schedule to send out. But this may mean an addtional week of being out of music. Still it has to go something like this because otherwise - when we let depend all nicely and neat on the sequence of received NOS1's - it will take a lot of latency between jobs. So then it takes ages longer before all have been done.

At least we seem to be in the swing of it now, so it flows.
Regards,
Peter

Yo all,

From this post : Re: NOS1 Upgrade contains ... (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2965.msg31392#msg31392) I can derive that the Monday after that post a first NOS1a was ready. This was at June 1.
Minutes ago a 9th left and today is the last day of the month. So 9 in say 4 weeks or 20 days. That is just over 2 days for one.

Some went smoothless others did not at all for various reasons and which reasons are to be considered part of the job (like a DIY shortcutting the lot and send it in for repair ;)). Anyway by now it seems decent to use these statistics.

Regarding the official list we have 3 in-house at this moment and official number 9 on the list (you will know who you are) will be invited by the end of the week to send his NOS1 by upcoming Monday.

Reasons typically for people virtually shift downward in the official list :
- New NOS1a's (or NOS1's);
- People who bought the Orelo speakers;
- Emergency situations like the DYI example given.

Meanwhile we try to do other things as well some times and vacation could be one of those.

Anyway the speculated ~2 days in advance turns out to be rather well esitimated, although I hope we have learned quite a bit from errors we can make seen from how measurements look and have ready answers instead of looking on a scope for a day what can have happened. So things should go faster than the just over 2 days per one like the average is now.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Pedal, small warning :

You can try that, but it only gets longer and longer. So on my serious estimation this "slim down" will happen in a year or so. I am serious ...
I do not notify anyone explicitly so it goes very graduate and easy at this moment but with the notice that on estimate 80% of owners never even look in the forum often.

Currently the list is 38 with 11 out (edit : but 12th ready). So 38-11 = 27 to go at this moment and 35 days ago it was also 27 to go. So in 35 days 11 were added and almost nothing changed for the waiting time (this also fits the 3 days per upgrade for throughput I ever estimated).

Peter

Well, then I hereby sign up and order the upgrade!

PS: I am turning 50 on October 15th, so that will make a nice present for myself!  :party:

Ha !


Even that was a mistake and it was 39. But you see, now the list is 40. Your fault.

Anyway, mentioned 27 should be 28 (because one ready here although not out plus yours), thus 28 x 3 = ... 84. That divided by 5 for working days = ... almost 17 weeks. Say 4 months. July 12 plus 4 months = ...
undoable.
The 3 days is maximum throughput. 2 days is minimum. so 28 x 2 = 56 = 11 weeks = say 1 week less than 3 months = ... still quite undoable.

One solution : bribe yourself higher up the list. Shall I list a few which I think are bribable ? haha

But I also see 2 or 3 persons in the list who want to be later than your 15th. That taken into account ... critical but doable.

Blahblahblah.
Thank you !
Peter

Thanks, Peter.

If not birthday present, there is the chance for x-mas present shortly after!  :grin:

And, mind you, I do NOT suffer the least now. The sound quality made a huge leap with XX 1.186-a and after I dialled in the settings in my signature. I am so happy with the SQ. Everything fell into place. It is just "perfect".

But, after 35 years in this game, I know of course that the progress never stops...

Peter hi,

Can I check that I made I to the NOS1a upgrade list ?

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2965.msg31446#msg31446

Many thanks.

Nick.

Hi Nick,

You are the single only one I never confirmed. Probably this is because you never responded to my email in the first place. Haha. :yes:

From where I am now I can't see the exact position, but it will be 30+. Of course I can look later today ...

So no worries !
Peter

Sorry, it was not intentional, for sure  :). Good to know that i'm in the list.

Best regards,

Nick.

Small update again :

I must say, things got way slow on our side suddenly;

To my own surprise, last week I found myself ordering parts for the next 30 (first round was 25). Not that all first 25 resulted in 25 NOS1a's (some boards fail) but still close to that. Partly the first batch of parts was consumed by new ones (remember, they have priotrity) and this is hard to plan of course.

What happened next though, is that *because* we ran out of parts, we also ran out of the half products (the soldered PCB's etc.). And what I did not much take into account is that while the first real produce was "postponed" by final trials and waiting for trial parts etc., meanwhile those PCB's could be produced in advance. But since we ran out of these, they now have to be produced (say first, in larger batches). Of course I never thought of that as the first production of these went quite unnoticed (OK, for me - not holding that soldering iron). But now ? yes, now I notice because it is a week of work going on already per today. And not finished.

Thus, might you get the feeling "when is my turn finally !?" then you should know we did not forget you.

Peter

The longer the waiting the sweeter the kiss  :yes:

Peter...

As a matter of interest...what number of upgrades are you up to...I know I am number 25 & I am trying to plan roughly when to send the Phasure back to you...

Thanks...Rob

Hi Rob, 10 ahead of you at this moment.
Regards,
Peter

Thanks for the update...sounds like it may be ready by Xmas with any luck...a nice present for myself...Rob