XXHighEnd

Original post updated May 18, 2018.

---

Hi all,

The original post from April 1 is now superseded with this text (the old text you'll find more below in this post).

The Phasure Mach III Audio PC is an outrageous beast with a gorgeous sound, unimaginable. It wildly surpasses its predecessor, the Mach II.
It is now based on robust server technique but still comes in the ever so nice form factor of 44x36x10cm / 17x14x4" (WxDxH), and still sporting a Linear Power Supply inside. The sound is truly incredible and is about speed, speed and more speed. More down in the topic you may read about the earlier descriptions of the sound which I tend to describe as "more important than a DAC".

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 17a.JPG)High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 17 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 17.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 16a.JPG)High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 16 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 16.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10a.JPG)High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10.JPG)

These are the prices of the Phasure Mach III Audio PC in euros and excl. shipping (VAT will be added for VAT liable countries) :

---

Number of Cores	Original Price	Current Price	As of date	Linear PSU	SQ relative to Mach II
8/16	2700	2725	August 20, 2018	Yes	?
10/20	2980	3005	August 20, 2018	Yes	++
12/24	3300	3325	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++ *)
14/28	3900	3950	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++
16/32	4350	4425	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++
20/40	5000	5250	August 20, 2018	Yes	?
22/44	6300	6370	August 20, 2018	Yes	?

The price of the 10/20 is held commercially low to give people with not too deep pockets a fair chance.
The 8/16 is not advised until someone orders it so the SQ can be judged.
The 22/44 would be experimental and may require a faster running cooling fan (then lightly audible at 10cm distance).
*) The 12/24 received a ++++ rating; see here (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4013.msg44053#msg44053).

---

Remarks on the "Current Price" column :

Prices on Intel processors go in US Dollars. The US Dollar has risen against the euro with 5% in only the past two weeks. This means that I just had to adjust the table for some processors with 120-200 euros, upwards. But it is worse : The prices depend on the stock at the supplier(s) and they tend to adjust their current price when they run out and have to purchase (against the current currency rate). Example for the 14/28 as of May 18 (2018) : I can see that this is stock from a few weeks back and still against the old price. This means that when we'd buy the last one today (there is one on stock indeed), tomorrow the price will rise with 70 euros (while the currency rate itself did not change much).

The price of memory increased like crazy the past two years (the 32GB for the Stealth II originally was 100 euros, now 260). If this price keeps on increasing, it has extra impact on the 48GB of the Stealth III. In addition to that, memory too is payed in US Dollars.

Whether the purchase prices go up or down, they will be actively maintained on a regular basis within some "hysteresis" bandwidth (50 euros or so).

---

The additional features are equal for each version :
- DVD Drive (the 3.5" external bay requires the removable HDD/SSD part, but a device which combines with a DVD enclosure ceased to exist);
- Removable 2.5" bay;
- 48GB of internal memory (installed with 6 parallel channel support);
- RAM-OS SSD (240GB) suited for 25GB RAM Disk (OS boots from RAM - SSD can be removed);
- OSes provided : 1x Windows 8, 3x Windows 10, upgradable by download (it is assumed you own a license for Windows 10);
- Activated XXHighEnd for power control;
- Actively managed super stable power consumption ... (with help of totally silent fan, no PWM);
- Very efficient Linear PSU explicitly made for speed (of delivery), very cold running (42-48C / 108-118F on the heat sinks, depending on CPU)
- Thermal protection for CPU, PSU and main ATX regulation.
- Non-obtrusive VGA on-(mother)board.
- 4 free/usable PCIe slots, 2 free memory DIMM slots, 2 M.2 SSD connectors, 4 free Ethernet ports, 6x USB3 (2 front) and more superfluous matter like 11 free SATAIII ports, a serial port and multi channel HD audio;
- No USB2.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 13a.JPG)

---

Here is the original text of this first post :

Hi all,

On this Easter day I announce the most crazy Audio PC ever : The passively cooled Phasure Mach III with 20 up to 44 hyperthreaded processor cores.
Yes, you read that well.

The PC aims at HQPlayer users who want the very very best and inifitely apply HQPlayer's filters (in multichannel as well). All resides in the same enclosure as the Mach II so it fits beautifully in any audio rack (but it can be stowed away in a basement just the same).

The PC will be very different from anything else because it will comprise of official Server elements, starting with a Server Motherboard. It is to be noticed that such an environment is made for super stability and e.g. self-checks for due (memory) failure. A key element of it could be that it can be fully remote controlled, meaning that this includes changing BIOS settings by means of a remote (like a tablet). You'll never need to connect a monitor again.

In this stage I am not sure yet whether the RAM-OS Disk provided with it (OS boots from that and next the boot device can be removed) will also contain an official Server version of the OS (like WS2016) as this depends on the license costs and it will make the PC unnecessary expensive. Do notice however, that when it is not XXHighEnd which arranges for the playback environment, it seems logical that people will like this. Anyway, I am not conclusive about this yet.

The PC is not for the faint hearted in the sense of the price which will be 3450 euros for the 20 core version via 4550 euros for a 32 core version and 5850 euros for the 44 core version. We regard the 44 core the maximum, although theoretically and with more testing it can be more cores against then really crazy prices (like adding 1500 euros for a next version and another 1500 for a next). So we skip those.

This now most explicit Audio PC comes with 48GB of internal memory and the topology serves 6 memory lanes (was 4).

Compared to the Mach II the most attention went to the power supply which will exhibit 10mV of ripple (on 15V which will regulate to 12V) at full power and merely : unsurpassed speed of the power supply. This is where the difference will be made audibly and how you will see that a next significant step could be made.

A first 32 core version is running over here with some things yet to solve, but while more than a month ago I thought to have announced it by long by now, I didn't like to let pass Easter without a nice Easter Egg. I'd have to tell you that most of the time in this stage is spent on throughput time for waiting for parts and answers from BIOS specialists etc. with again the notice that a Server (board) environment is a totally different beast from what we are all used to.
All in other words : I have no idea really when this "super machine" will be ready for purchase, but it could be in two weeks (seriously) or in two months (hopefully not but if things go as slow as right now ...).

Current Mach II owners and XXHighEnd users (or Phasure NOS1a/G3 owners for that matter) do not need to worry that they need to invest money in a new Audio PC again. OK, it will sound better again, but maybe it is not worth the investment again. It is merely about the future path which is coming to an end with the "26xxv4" (like 2640v4) infrastructure and how we improve on the way when we need to re-invent things anyway. More experience again, more knowlegde obtained and more and better ideas pop up all for the better. And more $ but that's how it goes.

Happy Easter everybody !
Peter

Something smells 'eggy'. And Easter is earlier this year than usual.

Mani.

Here in Spain (and Latin America) we celebrate the April fool's day on December 28.
But, who knows...

Juan 

On 1st April 2016, Peter announced the B'ASS:

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg38243#msg38243

This ended up being something slightly different to the original idea (integrated into NOS1 instead of being external), but did manifest as a real product.

I suspect the Mach III is indeed real... but not developed specifically for HQPlayer.

Mani.

If someone can remind me to describe the CRAZY sound, tomorrow ...

 :clapping: Peter!!   :naughty:

 :) Juan

So ... I made this descripion yesterday but found it to be containing too much blabla. Well, nothing new there, right ?

So about the sound of the new Phasure Mach III Audio PC eh; What do you want to know ? What do you like to know ??
OK, what can I tell ...

The sound of this PC has something new (for "dimension") to me. Each and every day again I find it to be addictive.
:huh: ?

The sound of the Mach II could possibly be described as "yeah, necessary; belongs to my system; is definitely for the better; more rest; blacker." So really, it is a must have. Linear Power Supply and all. Passively cooled. We audio idiots want such a thing and we have the desire to spend good money on it.
But it is a "must have" and really just a prerequisite to produce good sound from computer audio.

Mach III

Although the Mach II came along with the approach "let's do it really right for an Audio PC", with the Mach III the liberty was taken to make it the very best SQ wise. This path was a kind of logic for me because we are actually forcred to find a new Audio PC for the upcoming years, as the Mach II's parts (mainly MoBo and processors) start to become obsolete. With the original XXHighEnd PC - when the end was near - I started to buy all what was still available back at the time which in the end was a good approach. However, it was clear that we'd be buying "old stuff" maybe two years into new processors and all available. In the end this even shortened the life of the Mach II (started late with it). With the Mach III all is the other way around and I started with it while not even processors could be obtained. OK, I learned some lessons there.
The Mach III emerged in the midst of nobody knowing a hoot about its environment, but here it is, ready to buy. And I mean "today".

I think in the first post I mentioned the "server" domain we're in now. Well, this is a kind of forced too (you don't want to know how many times in the past month I wanted to step back from that - but impossible because of too many goodies) and this means theoretically but also practically that all is more decent. I am not sure whether it is this I want to hear in the sound coming from the Mach III, but if it is one thing, it is more decent. Robust. Dignified as well.

But if it wasn't clear by now already ... something totally new occurred; the PC has become part of the music reproduction. By now, I could regard it even more important than a DAC. And let's be honest, what wild changes in SQ we can already imply with "a" PC system (including the playback software) ? So am I right or am I right.

The Mach III is as if you bought a new DAC with new D/A principles, stuffed with all 100$ parts instead of 1$ and while this latter is even so for real, the sound is from whatever angle right. Correct. And with that addictive.

I now emphasized the word because it really is something new. Well, you can tell yourself "yeah, I know what you mean" but my response would be "no you don't". This is because I mean the phenomenon to be literal. Like smoking would be that. Say that it could be the difference between (Mach II) being sucked into the music on one hand and having the (Mach III) sheer desire to be sucked into the music, on the other.
So like yesterday ... who today is having the idea of "yeah, let's put up Led Zeppelin I and be overflooded with all as how it was meant to be and get high over it". So with that desire you put it up without knowing in advance what will happen (but be certain it is something for the best), to next tell yourself or others "how in the world has it been possible that such a new band could make such a superb album as their first, track by track".
So the addiction even ends up in satisfaction. All of it is there.

The thing about this addiction is really not just a story;
Something is happening to our brain that must be really good or something like that. It must be so well fitting/matching with what we expect, that unconsciously we suddenly accept all what's thrown at us (by loudspeakers). Additionally (for some proof) I notice that I am not wondering "is this right ? is this really right ??" but instead accept the music as it is. It is just for real or something like that.

Technically there is much, much more to say, but this will end up in the usual bla because how ever to bring across my perception of what's suddenly possibly with my system and to my ears. Still it is foremost about that because it is the first what comes to you. Thus, the addiction comes a bit later but what you hear is immediate. I'll try :

The sounds in the music are delineated in a way I have never heard anywhere. Actually this little description desribes it all (I think), but what to do with that. So I must elaborate :

First thing to notice with the proper music for it : there's shatter that makes you shudder. Oh yes. So with the sheer delineation in mind you might envision how very "super individual" sounds now react to each other. Think like one small sound is pushed from the speaker and right after that (few ms) a next sound. But this next sound influences the first in mid air. It collides and has its own effect. Then a next sound comes along and it again does the same and the effect becomes more complex. And more. And ... it fills the room completely with "sounds". Not the low frequencies as we know them and how they may energize the room, but just the higher and highest. These "effects" could very well not even have been recorded in the data because they do emerge in mid air. For example, a synthesizer will not be played through air in order to record it (unless played live and captured by microphone). It is also the instrument that isn't obfuscated by air first prior to it being recording by microphone. Well, that kind of sounds now work in extraordinaire fashion. Of course it has to be your music (for most it is not) but it tells about how all now "technically" is dealt with.

A good description could be "lack of smear". But, only after you heard it. I mean, smear ? are we suffering from that ?
Yes we do, because listen to this. Then you will know.

Let's turn shatter into the perception of copper (instrument). One of the more (if not the most) difficult sounds. Try it. Combine that with bass which is so, so deep - (not one octave but make that two if you're at it anyway) and find yourself in hell.
Yes, hell. Not heaven. What to do with heaven. Heaven is easy peasy. Hell is where all happens. Hell breaks loose. Well, shatter breaks loose too. Ratatatatatat and you try to hold up against it. Try that trumpet live in your listening room and see how long you surive. You really won't for long.
And that because of a stupid PC ?

:o

But didn't I tell it in the first post ? The Mach III has been made to support speed. It is full with things here and small things there to let that work out all together, net.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Pile b.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Pile a.JPG)

No, that is not the PC, but each and every element you may see piled up there has been in it. Try this, try that. Most of it was used to overcome technical hurdles, but along the way I got acquainted with how actually "speed" as such is to be created for an Audio PC. Of course I won't tell :secret: but in the end it worked out perfectly. More actually.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 02a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 02 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 02.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 03a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 03 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 03.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 05a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 05 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 05.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 06a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 06 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 06.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 07a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 07 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 07.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 08a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 08 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 08.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 04a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 04 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 04.JPG)

The last picture shows a big secret : a very slow running completely inaudible fan (not PWM connected). Believe it or not, is key to the sound ...

Peter

Hi Peter,

Congratulations on the successful launch of the Mach III.


Just a few questions:
-Does it support RAM OS disk
-If yes, can the disk be removed after booting.
-What max ambient temperatures can the PC handle.
-Power consumption in comparison to Mach II.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,

Like the NOS1a/G3 has been heavily optimized for power consumption, the same "techniques" were applied to the Mach III Audio PC; The Linear Power Supply dissipates an unbelievable low 35C or so at an ambient of ~22 as it is over here. It is about equal to "nothing". Btw this is during playback with Q3,4,5 to 1,1,1 (this implies maximum power usage).

The all over power consumption is maybe 3W higher than the Mach II, which is theory because I never checked with the NOS1a/G3 and the Mach II. This, while I saw the other day that the G3 alone consumes ~14W (I never knew this but it will be caused by the Phisolator).
So the answer : ~56W with connected NOS1a/G3 (playing) and ~42W on its own.

There will virtually be no restrictions to the ambient temperature because the "hot parts" it can be regarded to rise linearly with the ambient temperature (there's too much headroom to not let it work out like that). So say that your ambient is 40C and with that 18C more than over here, then the hot parts become 35 + 18 = 53 (which would still be a bit less than the Mach II) and the processor will rise from 42 which it is now to 60 which still will not let trip the safety cooling (which is there just the same).
But the safety cooling is there, including explicit switch on, just as with the Mach II.

On a side note, this is with a processor frequency of 960MHz (can be lower but it is tuned for the best SQ), and 6 DIMMS of memory (8 GB each) set to 1866MHz. This will run at the lower speed of 1600 (as long as memory is available which supports this) but it will also run at 2400MHz (current memory supports that for sure).

Nothing is really on limits although it took me 4 weeks to get it there.

The "infrastructure" as such remained the same as the Mach II although it was not easy to achieve for many reasons; Removable RAM-OS Disk is the same as it was and the DVD drive is also still there.
Weight is a few Kg more. :evil:

Kind regards,
Peter

Peter,
Can you comment on how much difference the number of cores makes in sound quality and how many cores you have been listening to?
You mentioned you got acquainted with how to create 'speed; in an audio PC.  Not asking for any secrets, but when you mention speed are you referring to the speed of processing data or the speed in terms of transient response (i.e. an audio system's ability to faithfully reproduce the quickness of transient signals).
thanks,
dave

Hi Dave,

The speed is about the transient response of the whole system, starting with the power supply (and even the transformer ahead of that). This is not about transient response in audio per se. But it *is* how it works out. Think in the realm of slow and fast capacitors.


The former question is hard to answer with numbers of some sort. Theoretically, however, the more cores the better because of less and less influence of processes not audio related. Say that it is an adhered strategy throughout (so also within XXHighEnd) which actually always rewards.
I did not play with less cores if your further question is about that. Well, I did because of testing and taming the heat (with 10 (20) but this was a not further optimized situation and I could not really compare because of not using 16 (32) yet.

Regards,
Peter

OK Peter. I have been thinking about this since you first made mention.  I don't need the new addiction description as I have passed that point long ago :innocent:

I am officially asking to be put on the list for ordering the Mach 3. I will PM you about details. At the same time I would like to send you my my spare NOS1 to be modified to NOS1a status. I'll pm you about this also. Thanks Peter. Enjoy your last Sunday as I expect you will be very busy for some time now. :teasing: :ok:

Well Fred, congratulations. You will go into the books as the first. OK, not really because the one now (about) finished is for someone already but he gently forced me into this. That is always different.
Haha.

Kind regards and super thanks !
Peter

Is there something we don't know?

Mani.

My guess is while I may be the first, I doubt I'll be the last :)

I thought Peter might have been becoming a part-time priest ;)

But good to know his Sundays will be taken up not servicing a congregation, but... well... us!

Mani.

I am a full time priest. Just got up early to practice today's preaching.
I better go to sleep again ...

Well, that someone is me. :) Please let me introduce myself. My name is Michael, from Montreal in Canada. My first language is French so please be indulgent with my writing. ;) It’s the first time that I participate to a forum although I have been an avid reader of them for a long time. Audio reproduction has always been my main hobby. As many of you it all started when I was a teenager, quite a long time ago. See my signature for a summary of my current audio chain. Obviously, the weak link in this chain is the source (Mac mini and Chord Hugo). Although I pushed the Mini and the Hugo almost to their limits with the mods I made over the years I knew I was still short of what I was really looking for, musically speaking. The sound was good, sometimes very good (specifically during night time) but I felt something was missing.

To make a long story short after a lot of reading I became convinced that a R2R NOS DAC would give me what I was looking for. So in February I contacted Peter and then started a long series of exchanges that lead me to order the NOS1a/G3 and the Stealth II PC with the Xeon 2640. However Peter quickly realized that the Xeon 26xx family had been recently put out of the market and replaced with a new generation of CPU, the Xeon 61xx family. This is how the Stealth III necessity appeared, out of a specific order for a Stealth II. Then began the long and sometimes painful R&D process for Peter. I won’t go in details on the hurdles he went thru during this journey but I’m sure very few people would have succeeded in putting together this new generation based on a genuine server platform and the unique specs of the Stealth requirements. Thanks Peter.

Six weeks ago I received the NOS1a and connected it to the Mac mini with XXHighEnd 2.10. Well there is no comparison with the Hugo fed with the same Mini and HQP. The first minutes I heard it I knew I had made the right choice. And I know that everything will be multiplied a few fold when I receive the Stealth III which should arrive sometime next week. Although I don’t have any reference with the previous Stealth generations for comparison, I’ll post my comments after a few listening sessions. I think my amplifier and beloved speakers will be pushed in territories in which I’ve never heard them before.

p.s.: thanks to the members of this forum who regularly post comments and questions (Manisandher, Nick, ACG, Arvind, Juanpmar, just to name a few). I’ve learned a lot in reading your posts on the Phasure site and others. You played a role in my decision making.

Hi Michael, yes, you start strong  ;). I'm sure you'll enjoy it a lot and I hope you'll share your new emotions soon.
:welcome01:

Juan

Hi Juan - Of course I will.  :)

Hi Michael,
Nice story and the best choice you could make!
Now I understand that the CPU is from the gold serie and not the silver serie. So in therms of CPU it is really a step up from the 26-serie.
Peter, am I right? Any thoughts on this decision?
Regards Arjan

Hi Michael, welcome! Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the Mach III. I think all of us are very intrigued.

For my own part, I can't imagine how the sound could possibly improve over what I have here right now. I recorded my 8 year-old practising his piano the other day. Playing the digital files back on the system, it was like the piano had been transported into my listening room (apart from the obvious noise from the mic preamps).

But somehow the sound always seems to go up another level when Peter comes up with something.

Mani.

Arjan - I don't want to step too much on the technical ground, I'll let this to Peter. However regarding the CPU I think that I can safely say that this first Stealth III will bear a Xeon 6130 from the Gold Series. It's a 16/32 core processor.

Mani - The comments I will make on the SQ with the Stealth III will be based on my own experience. Unfortunately I won't be able to comment in relative terms compared to the Stealth II. I went pretty far with the Mac mini and the various software to minimize the PC influence on the SQ. On that side I found something interesting recently. Six months ago for the first time I tried a few Linux audio player software. To my surprise I found the Euphony player to sound better than HQP. The sound was more detailed and more musical. This came as a surprise to me given that Euphony doesn't do any upsampling and that there is no additional software to tweak the PC. With HQP running from RAMDisk there was upsampling at 352khz, Audiophile Optimizer, Fidelizer and Process Lasso software to minimize the PC noise. The OS was Windows Server 2016.

On another matter, is there anyone on this forum having experience with the LEEDH E2 speakers?

Regards - Michael.

Hi there Michael. From me too a warm welcome here.
And yes, you caused me quite a project here. But it will be worth while for the next 2-3 years.

Minutes ago I performed the very last things to do, like making your RAM-OS Disk ready with the settings I like (SQ) best myself.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 10 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10.JPG)

So that's her - only yours. And with special application, as you can see. :)


(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 11a.JPG)High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 11 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 11.JPG)

Thanks a lot, kind regards and never do this again please. Haha.
Peter

Well, Peter forgive me but I involuntarily put you to test. ;) However I believe you accepted this challenge because it was just that...a challenge, with the potential of new ground breaking for an Audio PC. And now the baby is born, he's beautiful and full of promises.  :clapping:

Nice picture. I Can't wait to see the UPS truck in the driveway next week.

Thanks again - Michael

Hi Michael,

Warm welcome to the forum. I’m sure you’ll be very happy with the equipments/support provided by Peter & above all the high level of SQ you will be enjoying in the times to come.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Michael
Welcome to the forum...even if you are really the first ;)

Once I receive the Stealth MACH III I will be able to compare the SQ of both. I am also having a spare NOSI upgraded. I will probably let that burn in with a second system. My guess is it will take some time to break in as did my first G3 upgrade. It's nice to have options :good:

I have not heard the LEEDH E2 speakers. From what I have read they are excellent and quite unique. Who knows, we are only 4 hours apart as I am in southern New Hampshire. I'll check my system description as I have made some changes. A bit more traditional but it sounds quite good.

Looking forward to hearing your comments.  :welcome:

Michael,

Welcome to the forum.  Curious to hear reviews from those presently using Stealth II on the improvements with Stealth III.  Stealth II was definitely an improvement over the original XXHE PC, BUT so much else improved (NOS 1a upgrades, XXHE upgrades, Blaxius, Lush, etc.).  What you will find is there is no other system of products out there that has this kind of continuous upgrade path built in.

Looked up the LEEDH E2 speakers.  Seeing 81dB (or 83dB) efficiency made me a bit concerned.  My experience is that speed, clarity, dynamics are hard to accomplish at these efficiency levels.  Not sure there's anyplace to listen to them in San Francisco.  The Orelos by the way are utterly fantastic!!  You have to hear them.

Again welcome,

Ramesh

Hi Peter,

maybe I missed the info:

RAM -OS still with W10 or ....?

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

Definitely still with W10 and definitely all the very same (setup / configuration).
But yes, I am guilty of making a usual first-post-chaos of matters which are so-called true (on April 1). At some stage I will revisit the first post and make a nice summ-up of all what is in there.
But ask ahead anyway ! The Stealth III is really there. And seriously for the better, but I held a bit back of that so far. Maybe in a next post ...

KInd regards,
Peter

OK. I am thinking of putting up the original post I had in mind originally (but saved it elsewhere), that post expressing about the sound. But for now it could only be more confusing when doing that prior to this very post I am writing now, because of new data available ...

Yesterday I have been playing with a 10/20 core. Say that this is the one for fmanheck but only in "test" and to see what the 10/20 core would bring.


And that was a still pending question ...

Whether Silver or Gold (or Bronze or Platinum) is maybe not of importance (I do not know of inherent technical differences apart from number of cores and processor speed) but anyway this 10/20 is the 4114 and it should represent the good old 2640v4. Well, for the number of cores, that is. But there the comparison stops. And this is all related to the explicit "Server" environment which is radically different. So I need to say it again : the 26xx Xeons were actually consumer oriented and today no such an environment exists any more for the Xeons, unless it would be the new W series but although looking interesting, this is the opposite of what we'd want and is more "laptop" oriented. So we have the "Xeon Scalable" and it is their architecture which makes them interesting for us. Well, says me and with the hopefully present experience (which often is merely about hunches but alas).
It is also about the six lanes of parallel memory processing.

If I first try to summarize everything : this is all about how the power provision was made "super stable" which in itself happened a bit by accident but had its foundation in the fact that no normal cooling mechanisms exists for this. It anticipates 90dB generating blasting fans (ever been in a server room ?) and with that airflow and in an air conditioned room of 15C or so, it will work. But this is all not really us, right ?
So if I did not tell it yet : there's always one very slow fan running now (not PWM controlled which is good) and the result of that is a.o. a stable power draw. It is way more stable than the Mach II and at hooking up a power consumption meter this is easy to observe (Mach II jumps regularly, Mach II is always the same).
Do notice the importance of this *if* we recognize that the minute differences implied by stupidities as XXHighEnd already implies vast sound changes, right ? Thus, seeing the power consumption change by 2-3 Watts all the time, can't be the example of the theoretically best sound (about theories, hunches and real empirical experience).

Back to the 10/20 processor

When I was listening to this setup yesterday, into an hour of it, this text for you all came to me (and I hope you recognize I am always honest) :

This 10/20 processor is for those who do not have the very best system. It now will sound better than the 16/32 (the only other one I have experience with so far) just because the 16/32 demands too much of the system (more elaboration later, if I don't forget).

A few hours later, partner in crime Ciska arrived back home and I know what she sort of complained about the past few weeks, which I will tell about later as well, but which made her say literally this :
"Hmm ... maybe the one processor is better for more inexpensive systems and the other for the more expensive ones". And the sweet question : "how's that actually with the Orelos ?" ... and then I started taking about small chips producing the sound instead of a 1000 components etc. with the question what could be better when. And also about the speaker itself of course and how its speed matches, well, the 16/32 processor's exhibits. So ...
So let's quote myself from the text I did not put up, actually for the reason of too much of theory at the time (which was a small week back) :

---

Sound ... literally shattering good.

Yes, the keyword is "shattering" here. I wouldn't know a better description, although to you it may come across as a negative. But the contrary is the case.
Let's first try to see that all wht you'll hear from the Stealth III is delineated like crazy (that word again). Each is on its own and with that in mind now think "shattering". Or better : how shattering (like copper instruments) can really shatter. How it creates a crazy amount of layers and fills the whole room with sound, this time not with low frequency only; Supposed you play something of not the most common instruments and you may never have witnessed those instruments live, then such an instrument can/will now sound all over different than you ever imagined. And, as so often, you won't even be able to recognize the track/album. I had an example the other day I now forgot, but think like a most normal Steely Dan of which you have to look twice whether you did not put up a(n unknown) coverband. Com-ple-te-ly different.

Bass is like you ended up in hell.
Deep Thunder is like ... OK the same. But there wasn't deep thunder previously in tyracks accordingly.
The highs are so so idiotly "short" and bright and whatever superlative more we can try to think of, that all else now sounds like dirt. And yes, I have serious problems with listening to the Stealth II now and if I had to go back to it I'd give up the hobby first.
Can't imagine that eh ?

---

Here is where I decided not to put that up because I couldn't talk existing Stealth II customers into spending another 4K+ euros only because of something new again, the old for some only months old. But I also seriously started to wonder whether what I perceived over here could work out for others elsewhere. I mean, that "shattering" won't come automatically; it requires speed speed and more speed. Like one small chip processing all of the sound (as how the main amplifiers in the Orelos do it). What would happen when this speed is no available ?
Now, together with Ciska talking about "maybe too cold" (which is an exhibit of "super speed" because of all the highs coming to you) I started to wonder whether I could do something to tame the speed. And I found ...
Q1.
It was a kind of logic (for thought) because we all just started manipulating that one for more speed and after trying a bit, I ended at 30x10 (instead of 30x40). Now there was less of the super speed and more of the necessary warmth.

Well, day before yesterday we both explicitly checked that, and all what I heard over and over was "this is not what I expected (it could do)". So to a large surprise now and the warmth was back, and the speed was there just the same. But her surprise was about S-es remaining normal, while all the highs seem to incur for "overing" that. But not so. Not so at all. And now it requires my original post about the SQ impression, but never mind; I can refer to the "Addictive" I put up for the replacement post. Highs which clearly incur for the worst (like shattering braking windows) while nothing is wrong with S-es. How can it be.

Wait, we were talking about the 10/20. And btw, this is not 4K+ but 3K+. Also I must now revisit the prices because by now I know exactly what goes in there. OK ...
What I could sense of that was the better capability of my system. Yes. Well, mind you, I reason towards matter I hear and this is what I am now saying : my system of course is not the best of all. It just isn't. And it is just the same as reasoning with the 16/32 for a base : the system must be sufficiently good to let that processor (setup) excel. It does here all right, but ...
But it needs just that tad more ?
No wait, with Q1 at 30x10 all is fine. Yyyyyess, but what about more speed sounding worse then ?

I hope I am clear a little, but probably not at all. But the 16/32 summarized : for me this is perfect when I don't dial in the max possible for speed (as how I perecive it now).
The 10/20 is perfect at 30x40 although I can't check beyond that.

The 10/20 sounds totally different again and it is the "woman's" processor. It is more slick (sound wise). It shows all the (crazy) speed of the world more downwards in the spectrum. It is more easy on the ears. It is not as 100% interesting compared to what the 16/32 can do.

And mind you, between the 2640 (10/20) and the 2660 (14/28) I never perceived a real difference "but if anything the 2660 sounds better". Not so when the "Scalable" 10/20 and the 16/32 are compared. The difference is huge again. And btw as huge as the difference is between the 2640 (mind you, for a whole computer system) and any of these two.
See the "dirt" remark more above, from that post I did not put up. It really is so.

So finally the verdict between the 16/32 and the 10/20 through these ears :

- 16/32 exhibits speed that at least lets my system run into limits, as it seems. Not 100% sure yet as more settings exist than Q1. Bass excels, highs excels up to shattering good, mid is just very good but may stay behind a bit caused by the overwhelming highs. Can be tamed by Q1 towards more warm sound, but it seems a waste to do that (the super special may disappear somewhat).

- 10/20 exhibits speed in the mid, is warm up to being in a warm bath. Bass excels possibly even more. Maybe no real shattering highs but easy on the ear always for those who want easy on the ear.

So, done.
:nea:
The 10/20 was a test. Next up could be the 12/24. I expect this to be "better" again than the 10/20, just because the 10/20 does not let me (with my system) run into limits that I can see (OK, after one day of listening !). Point is that I can't get it at this moment. And, going to the 14/28 is a bit moot because of the price approaching the price of the 16/32. Also, I obviously can't be obtaining processors forever just for testing them. Not at these prices. They should be feasible to sell. And well, the 16/32 for sure is (I probably get one for myself) and the 10/20 for sure is too (I will keep using that if nobody wants it :smirk:).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 12.jpg)

Now I hope you don't regard this as the most idiot blabla reasoning ever (about system limits and such) but anyway it is really how I now think.

Regards,
Peter

To Arvind, Fred and Ramesh, thanks for your warm welcome. :smile:

Regarding the LEEDH E2 speakers, it's true that they are not very efficient but they are very well matched with the AVM SA8, which has very similar specs than the Primary A32 owned by Fred. I'm kind of allergic to boxy sound speakers. The E2 is totally boxless. It's based on a unique technology using neodimium magnets, pistons made of composite materials enclosed in a totally inert chamber filled with ferrofluids. They are very neutral and their very low mass make them very responsive and quick. In a normal room they can provide sufficient bass but in my case the speakers are located in the living room which is totally open to the whole house. This  makes it difficult for the bass to fill this large volume. That's why I added the LEEDH Sub which is also boxless and has been designed to specifically match the E2. For those curious about these speakers you can go on the LEEDH site http://www.leedh-acoustic.com/Loudspeaker-leedh-e2-uk.php

Fred - You're right NH is not that far away from Montreal. Who knows maybe eventually we could arrange something during a short vacation in your beautiful area. 

The comparative description Peter made of the Xeon 10/20 and the 16/32 (the one I'll get) above, is interesting and also intriguing to me. I'll soon have a taste of what he means since the III is now on its way. :)

Regards - Michael

Hi Peter,

The Stealth III is not far from home. There is still customs to clear, so I expect a delivery today or tomorrow.

In an email you sent me you mention that the only way for the III to access music files is via LAN. I will then use my Mac mini as a music server. Technically is the III capable to read music files on a USB stick connected to one of its USB port?

Now, to control the III I want to use RDC with my Surface Pro. This means that I need to use a second Ethernet port on the III to connect it to the Router which has a wifi connection. This will work, right?

Thanks - Michael

Hi Michel,

Surface -> (RDC, WiFi) -> Router -> (cable) -> Mac Mini -> (RDC, cable) -> Stealth.

Start with the last part ("Mac Mini").
This is the advice, so let's stick to that. Later you can explore the 1000 more possibilities/combinations, right ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi all - time for a small update.

The 10/20 processor must be in for 10 days now and I must say that I feel I have it fully "under control" now. Of course it can be so that by now I forgot the sound of the 16/32 processor, but there's now so much more interesting in the music than what I recall from my Mach II "era" that by now I would definitely stay with the 10/20 if I could only choose that one (and my Mach II).

Two main matters happened which made this work really well now :

1. For this processor I changed a few things to the PSU (to be honest it has become a whole new PCB so it better fits the case in the mean time). Will post a photo later, if it means anything to you anyway.
This PSU required some break in of 4 days. At least this is what noticed. This was completed 3 days ago.

2. The somewhat more "grey-ish" sound (say a bit more slow) compared to the crazy 16/32 regarding the highs, could be tamed by putting back the buffer in the NOS1's Driver Control Panel from 16ms to 4ms. So yeah, what experience all can do (didn't I use that 4ms for "years" until the recent long Q1 setting method). So in combination it brings more sparkle for this setup - the sparkle I missed since the 16/32 went out (to Michael).

Yesterday I ended the listening session first with Autobahn (Kraftwerk) and of course everybody is allowed to call me crazy to play this "music" in the first place. But mind you, because it is so blatantly stupid - 20 minutes long, it really has to have something or otherwise indeed it is "nothing" as such. So might you don't know, those (simple) synthesizers together with the simplicity can just spellbound you. But it has to work.
earlier on I told about the mid detail of this 10/20 setup. But what mid-detail I actually mean here ? well, how a lower keyed synthesizer can be sparkling (shattering) in the lower frequencies because of its on/off sound. Yesterday I heard things in that 20 minute track I never ever heard one bit of before. When it happened the first time we both looked at each other and equally said "huh ??!".
It was not even me who said that the PSU must be broken in now, she also referring to a "hey, but the other day this Autobahn did not work much, right ?". Correct, I even shut it off preliminary.

Talking about spellbound ... when Autobahn was finished there was a bit of time left before dinner would be ready and I thought "oh wait, if Autobahn sounds so mighty good suddenly, what would In-a-gadda-da-vida do ?". And yes, nothing worked out better than that if it was for the return to the atmosphere of dark basements with (fish)netting against the ceiling, an LP shimmering while playing this 17 minute track with the xth Iron Butterfly drummer because they all died of the too long drum solo (who ever made up that story for this few minutes of real solo I don't know, but I am sure that I believed everything at the age of 12).

---

If I feel like it, tonight will be important because I plan to move my USB cable (ending at the input of my NOS1a/G3) to the Stealth II (yes, that is still running from its 8++weeks RAM boot). Part of the plan is that I will try to tell you as accurately as possible the difference between the sound of the (2640v4 - 10/20) Stealth II and the 10/20 Stealth III. I will (honestly) do that too if the Steath II sounds better of some sort. But I would not count on that. :evil:

More later. Kind regards,
Peter

I didn't have the proper ears for anything, yesterday.
It's a bit of a psychological thing as well, because while I couldn't find my sound, I noticed that the settings (of XXHighEnd) were not as how I expected them to be, so I probably too soon set them to what I thought they should be, for the worse (relative to day before yesterday).

On a side note, I can't figure out how that happened. So the settings I found yesterday are a combination of settings I definitely used somewhat longer ago, but with having the Audio PC (Stealth III) rebooted regularly (say about daily), the settings always being nicely saved to the SSD, on Sunday (day before yesterday) I rebooted too, but this time in "hard" fashion because I couldn't connect to it because of something I did wrongly on Saturday night. So Sunday afternoon the settings were not saved with for result it got hold of older settings ? I wouldn't know how it did that, but it did.
The settings are auto-saved each day, also to permanent storage once the RAM-OS is normally shut down. So I set myself to the task of finding out when actually these settings we saved in "old" fashion for the first time.

As you can imagine this confuses highly. I don't know about you, but for me such settings are an evolution of relative judgments and findings. And if suddenly this has reverted to something you don't know, then you are, well, confused. Had I been listening to these settings for one day more ? two days ? a week ?? This unknown alone is sufficient to be without ears. And that happened to me yesterday.

Peter

PS: Below we can see how there's a gap between the 9th and the 13th of May (Sunday). So the Mach III has been running for 4 days from of the 9th, until I had to hard reboot it and it couldn't save the settings files to permanent storage of the lacking days. But these are the saved settings, which doesn't readily tell what I used after any boot up. Anyway, the file of May 13 should contain the wrong settings already, which settings are a copy of the real settings used when XXHighEnd was started the first time after the reboot, Sunday afternoon, 1:38pm. It seems logic that the settings of the 9th were used (loaded) at that moment. Btw, it resembles my (previous post) mentioned "4 days" of burn in of the newly built PSU. So after the 4th day suddenly all "snapped in". Yeah, but with different settings than the 3 days prior to that ...

Hi,

I dont want to distract from Peters Mach III thread but I can offer some supporting comments on the sound of a 6130 16/32 core system.

Sound quality is EXCEPTIONALLY good, its an absolutly outstanding device for music replay. My old PC which was an x99 14/28 core with some modifications to its clock and power supply arrangements,  which set a very very high bar for SQ. To have the 6130 play so well in comparision is a major supprise.

The 6130 was not a straight forward build, as Peter says above server boards are certainly a new environemt, and it is expensive. I absolutely agree with what Peter says about sound quality here. Having been through a build, IMHO the Stealth III looks like very good value to me.

Regards,

Nick.

Hi Nick,

So you received a Stealth III? This one would be the 2nd one I believe.

Michael

Michael,

No I dont have a stealth III. But felt it useful to comment on 6130 sound quality.

Also having been through a build and knowing what bespoke componemts and work Peter puts into the Stealth II, (but not of course the Stealth III) I genuinly think that the physical package and most importantly the music quality make the Stealth III great value.

KR,
Nick.

Hi Nick ! what a nice surprise that is !
I was waiting for you to dive into this, but it is a surprise that you are so soon with it. I mean, I felt a little bit "obtrusive" with my posts about the Stealth III, with you at about the same day telling about your latest clock etc. endeavours. And I really did not want to let "snow that under", but what to do.

For Michael and others :
Nick is quite keen on improving SQ with the soldering iron, which often requires a lot of guts, certainly the knowledge, huge time (as we know) and also some spare $. It wouldn't be the first time that Nick motivates me to try out something (including explicit pointers) in order to me next coming up with something "commercial" worked out by me, all free of charge by Nick. And aren't we all here to stimulate each other. This time it apparently worked the other way around to some degree, which is very very nice.

It is certainly not something for anyone else to try for himself as it may cost you a lot of failure and thus money. The environment is really different and I am glad hat Nick confirmed this a little.

Nick, congratulations with your sound ! yes, it really is something. :grazy:
I am sure you located the clock locations already. And I can tell you (seriously / genuinely) : the sound really feels as if your clock mods were applied. How that goes by description only is a bit beyond myself, but I guess this is about "interpretation" of how you write.

Best regards and thank you for sharing !
Peter

Hi Peter,

This definaly kicked off for me because of your posts  :).

At the time you started this thread, my X99 clock project was finished. It took close to 2 years and literally 100s++ of changes, the sound was really something very special but there was not much else I could think of to keep me busy on the x99 board so I was starting to look out for something new to try. Then you posted on the  Intel Scalable Processors and 601 PCH chipset. Our systems are very similar so I got straight away that you were really onto something. A look at the PCH 601 data sheet ( 3000 pages :-) ) really helped decide to do the build. Besides all of the very important for a music server archtecture features you mentioned in this thread, the 601 chipset clock system has changed from the x99. Its like someone in Intel thought "lets give those audio guys a helping hand"  :). On the face of it on paper back then and now listening to the built PC I think you are right in that much of the X99 clock benifit can already be heard in the 601 based build...... billiant !

Regards the sound quality, IMHO the 6130 build is very step from the Stealth II (which is quite a suprise given the excelant sound quality of the Stealth II). My clock bought a lot more to the table on an x99 system and now the 601 / 6130 takes a big step forward from there.

I hope to hook up with an x99 with clock PC at my place next week to do some direct comparisons (unfortunatly I used parts from my x99 in the 6130 build so I cannot play them back to back right now). The focus is not so much on might the 6130 be such a big step forwards. It just is. But on comparing the effect the clock has as I think there may be a little goodness to be got with the 6130 system but I want to be sure before I risk wrecking some expensive components  :o

Regarding the 601 / 6130 server build, yes its certaily different to a desktop PC, even now I have some instability that I have to sort out. I know how well rounded and complete your stealth builds are and stand by my comment that the Stealth III is going to be good value given its content and the SQ performance.

Definatly enjoying the music just now  :grazy:
KR,
Nick

I've never been called 'an x99 with clock PC' before ;)

Looking forward to coming over Nick... should be a very interesting day.

Mani.

Haha, yes looking forwards to seeing you  :)

OK, I am listening for over 90 minutes now to a 14/28. There is just no comparison with the 10/20. It is just ultra-ultra fast and during the first seconds I right away heard back the sound of the 16/32.
There is no tweaking of any parameter needed to let it excel the music in inordinate fashion from any angle. I say it again :

Crazy

Let's keep in mind : the speed is in the higher regions here. The 10/20 has its speed in the mid. That is as interesting (but different) and a lot cheaper ...

Peter

Hi all,

Yesterday I finally went back to the Mach II and could compare it with the Mach III - I am by now very well acquainted with.
Actually one term suffices : Mach II is a rough machine.

In comparison the Mach II exhibits rough sound and nothing of the finesse the Mach III happily shows. Speed ? there is no speed. Interest in the music playing ? not existent. It just is not interesting. OK, if you like a babbling crook and like to doze off during listening, don't get yourself the Mach III. But otherwise ? ...

All right. It is more interesting than what I just said because there's also an intriguing part. Maybe read this (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4048.msg43376#msg43376) first.

The largest part of the discussion we had last night is why Ciska has more difficulty with the sound of the Mach III. Well, the conclusion is, it's a brain thing and perhaps the not being interested really in the "super speed" the Mach III exhibits. So yesterday we had one example of a known album - Yello's Toy, and it's plain flat in comparison. Mind you, flat in the sense of flat "tones" without variation in them. Say as you know it from Yello because you wouldn't know otherwise. But now come over here and have a listen ...

The difference is for example in the voice. Know Mark Knopfler ? good, then you know nothing much. But well, you are entitled to know that Dieter Meier (Yello) surpasses Mark Knopfler on the deep and crackling voice (imagine the combination) by a mile or two. Inordinate (I could call it "crazy" once again). But this is just a voice and while you out there are used to Mark Knopfler and don't care about Dieter Meier being worse on it, you surely would care if Mark Knopfler started to sound as Chris Isaak. Right ?
So now you know how the Mach III sounds. No wait, what it can do.

Only two days ago I was fighting with the Crack Detection in XXHighEnd because one album kept on tripping on it (in each of its 4 tracks at some point). Might you be interested : 4T Thieves - The Digital Lagoon.
So what's up with this one ? well, according to the trip-setting of Crack Detect, more than 50 (100%) subsequent level (voltage) changes from close to the max of minus and the max of plus. Thus imagine your sound level in the room, and that about the loudest sound exhibits from deep silence to the maximum and that more than 50 times in a row at a sampling speed of 705600 time per second and this thus happening within 1 / 705600 x 50 = 0.00007 second. Thus, within this 0.00007 second the volume changes from min to max 50 times and ... you will be able to perceive it. Or at least it does something to the sound which is audible (to a trained ear ?) and a kind of "obviously" it was made like that (it is just in the music).
Btw, combine the title of the album with this ("The Digital Lagoon").
Anyway, when I was working on the weakening of the Crack Detect Tripping (which was set to 16 of these subsequent samples and is now at 100 so this album can be played), I really was focusing on what I could hear of it, knowing that it is in there. I envisioned (that I heard) this blasting fast on/off sound (generally by me referred to as crackle but better to call it sizzle at this frequency).

And that's how Yello is completely flat or maybe dead via the Stealth II in comparison. Try to envision the more complex sounds of a synthesizer (most modern synths can't even produce pure sines) and how the individual build up of such a sound now is audible. All crackles - all sizzles. All rattles when it is more about the lower frequencies. There's a tonne of more interest because of this in everything.

But now Ciska ...

What we tried to figure out yesterday is whether it could be possible that one (or at least she) can't cope with this;
Let's say that all what's happening also has to be processed by the brain. Let's say that Mark Knopfler could come across as tiring somewhat, so what if this exhibit of a voise gets even worse ? Oh, I like it the best, but maybe if you like to doze off you can't because of this. Or, maybe if you want to read a book at the same time, you can't. Too much processing required.

Also interesting is that at least for me it is some other way around. I think I said in this topic somewhere that never mind all what's going on, it does not happen in a way that it distracts. The contrary, it is all more natural and therefore requires less macro attention. Otoh at the micro level all happens and if it gets constipated there the whole thing blows ?

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 15a.JPG)High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 15 (http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 15.JPG)

---

What was and remains interesting is how it could happen that with the "dumb" idea of making a power supply (the one for the Stealth III) super fast, the whole audio representation indeed becomes that fast. I mean, it actually can not be so that something of the audio itself is processed faster, like we can say this of the mains vs battery (a battery not being fast at all) as a supply to the power amp. Nothing of that order plays a role here. However, and as I told earlier in the topic, I created a super stable supply (as my measure of "speed" - it responds instantly) and now it looks like that this does a few things in the realm of "control" of the clock lines; I forgot the subject myself by now, but a MotherBoard and the fast CPU's of these days, anticipate skewing of the clock lines and take measure on it, while a super stable PSU (including the draw on it !) may incur for those measures not being tripped. And next is : less noise. And from noise by now we sufficiently know what its implications can be, especially in the digital domain(s).

In the next days I will try to focus on how Ciska reacts to the level (volume) and how loud I actually play. So, it is also good to acknowledge that I indeed play way louder with the Stealth III just because the average SPL is lower. How does this work ? well, actually you can hear it by means of the spades of air now being present. Air = literally no sound. It is the gaps between two "cycles" so to speak. No smear - nothing. Now if these "cycles" connect, the general level becomes higher and the SPL (which is a representation of "average") is thus higher. However, the spikes themselves (the maxing of the "cycles") is way louder. This too is audible as this is the sparkle and such and how the sound crackles through the room in s(c/q)uary format. So what's louder ? one canon shot in your room, of 1000 gun shots which add up to the same average SPL ? I know ... it's the gun shots.
So I could be playing too loud.

Blablabla ?
:yes:

(http://www.stordiau.nl/XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC/Phasure Mach III Audio PC 14a.jpg)
Peter

OK, this beats all. :)

Yesterday I organized a "Hip-hop" evening for myself. Played a bit of early (MTF) Ice-T when sound was still really open and uncompressed, followed by a(n again MTF) older Paris album I did not have yet. And well, when the lyrics are not tooo "advisory" ... nothing sounded so good and honest ever before.
After two hours of these "cool beats" - seriously finding nothing wrong with it, I thought it was time to anxiously ask Ciska here whether she could explain to me what is bugging her (regarding the Stealth III, see previous post). The surprising answer : nothing, it sounds enormously good.
(and I did notice here swinging all the time on this MTF this and MTF that, and wondered)

Bbbut, I thought you found something to sound nasty for you ?
Yeah, no wonder with all these ticks and sparks and other fast stuff - that is no music. It already wasn't but now it is crazily emphasized and I guess it makes me crazy.
Aha. It depends on the music.

All right. As I do regulalry, I tried a few Thrillers and Bads from Michael Jackson, to see whether that can be played now. Another big surprise : gone were the synthesized drums.
Huh ?
Well, I told you, the highs are super special (and addictive).

But the by far biggest surprise was yet to come ...

As a kind of reward for being nice to me (on the SQ subject) I played a few tracks from Nina Hagen which is a favorite of her.
Saw her explicitly focusing with a big grin on her face but I also noticed THE novelty of the year (or century) ...

So ... we are all familiar with the "plays one octave lower", right ? But did you ever hear of "plays one octave higher" ? I personally don't. Until yesterday, that was;

And I now start to understand why these highs can be "appriciated" so much. But it needs the music to see through it and grasp what it actually is about. So :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/images/NinaHagen01.png)
Nina Hagen, to me, always has been some punky gothic with an interesting voice. Today she's suddenly a most hey-keyed soprano who - as I can now hear - ends sentences (as a gag ?) with another extra octave (just for a small half of a second). IIRC Kate Bush has a bit of the same but more as part of the sentence (but also very short) and less as a gag.

---

Summarized for now, I described the Mach III as going two octaves lower and now thus one octave higher as well. So it is an strange way of adding "dynamic range" to your system.
And oh, for those interested in emphasized electric basses this is what I found on Tidal yesterday :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/images/DeLaSoul01.png)https://listen.tidal.com/album/70518588

Although that too was planned to be part of the hip-hop evening, this album appears very special and is not really De La Soul as we're used to. It's almost exclusively cool bass riffs with a depth and strength ... well ... you know. No lyrics. In the screenshot you see the tracks which went into my Demo Gallery.

Peter

Just a very general remark as of July 11, 2018 :

Might people think : why don't we hear more of new customers ... well, the processors are very hard to get (was already waiting for many weeks, and another 4 were just added today).

Don't tell : there is one 14/28 available. :)

Regards,
Peter

I just returned from holiday. sandy beaches...warm sun...pampering service... great food and drink.... :holiday:

I missed 2 things while gone. My very cool dog Bruno 8)

AND my Phasure Mach III music playback system.  :clapping:

I am not giving up either. You should grab the one nobody is speaking of :xx:

Yes I would dearly love to order one waiting for my fortune to arrive. I suspect this upgrade is massive and logical. In fact one should start at this point, the source has always been critical. I've priced the parts only, not including case, for 14/28 in New Zealand and they come to the price of Peter's completed, tested version. So Peter's pricing is certainly very competitive.

Interesting that progress on DAC technology globally appears to have stalled.

Robert

Hi Fred,

Remember the dialed in settings as of now. Then try these :
SFS=140.19
Q1=30
xQ1=11
Q3,4,5=1
ClockRes=15
CoreAppointment=3-5
NOS1 Driver Buffer = 16

(this gives sluggish response on about everything but Stop - I don't care a bit).

For me this does miracles with the 10-20. Now I like to know your (relative) perception with the 14-28.

Thank you Fred,
Peter

Peter, do the entries in the 'SQ relative to Mach II' column still stand in your opinion?

Mani.

Thank You Professor Peter :thanks:

I love homework assignments. :rules:

I'll report back later :good:

Hey Mani,

Yes. But very far and very theoretically I'd have to dedicated more value (say another +) to the 10/20 which I am using myself. It is just that the emphasis is so much different from what I recall of the 16/32 and 14/28 (which latter two sound very much alike). Also : the more I use the 10/20, the better I can find "the settings" for it (takes time).

I suppose this is not very helpful, so please ask more if needed.

Regards,
Peter

Ok I have done some serious listening using both sets of settings.

The new recommended settings do sound different and I would say better but not dramatically so. When the sound of the music is as good as it already is; even not dramatically better is still a significant improvement. For me the most noticeable changes are a greater sense of richness of tone and not sure how to describe the next change but I'll try.

It almost seems that the music seem to be  "slower" with the new settings. By slower I am not talking about quickness and speed, but rather you seem to hear and process the music with a greater sense of detailed recording space and my mind seems to have more time to better resolve the musical picture. I am not sure my explanation make sense to anyone but I really do not know how else to describe it.

2 music tracks I am very familiar with, both from a live perspective(seen both artists many times) and recorded (listened to may times) are Lucinda Williams album - This Sweet Old World and song "Sidewalks of the City" and Bruce Cockburn album  Charity of the Night and song "Strange Waters" illustrate the sense of increased tone and better resolved musical picture.

Lucinda's track just oozes tonality. Check out the guitar and her voice. So naturally raspy and life-like.

With Bruce the song is filled with musical detail a good amount which seemed to be of that cliché "hearing new details on very familiar recordings". The treble and the bass both extremely lifelike together.

Both songs sound just fantastic and I'll be keeping these new settings. Thanks

So (Fred), it goes on and on and on. Currently you should be having the better sound from what I have ever heard.
But little secret : I sneaked a 14/28 in the house (again) so I now can theoretically try those new settings with that processor too.

Something else is that I am pretty sure the sound is getting better and better - almost noticable each day (with the 10/20). So I start to wonder what is subject to this "burn in".
Fred, do you have a similar experience ?

Peter

Hi Peter,

timing looks ok for me as I will be sailing until the beginning of September. So if the Mach III will be finished in September, that would be great.
So, please send me the invoice. Delivery and billing adress as always.

And I would like to try a shorter "lush", like 1m or so. Please put it on the invoice too.

Kind regards
Richard

Thank you Richard, very nice.
We will make a special Lush for you. :) :)

Best regards,
Peter

PS: I split your post from Re: 2.10 sound quality (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3999.msg43495#msg43495).

Hi Peter,

Regarding the core reduction, was this a one time attempt out of curiosity or do you see enough potential to further push the investigation of this phenomenon? Could I do it myself on my Mach III, 16/32 cores? And pushing it even more, could this kind of function be added in a future software release?

Thanks,

Michael

Hi Michel,


It was out of curiosity but obviously when I attempt such a thing I might have an idea about the result in advance. But it worked out way better than I could imagine.
And mind you please, I only tried 10/20 on the 14/28, but it can also be set to any number under the maximum (like 12/24, 8/16, etc. and in your case also to 14/28).


Yes, very easily :

Cause the BIOS to appear (press F2 or Del once you see the number F4 on the bottom line of the monitor (monitor and mouse/keyboard have to be connected in order to get in the BIOS), go to the second menu option - Advanced, go one line down to CPU, press enter on it and change the "All" next to number of cores (similar) to any lower number. NOtice that only the major numbers are listed there (like 15,14,13, etc. for your 16/32).
Press Esc one time, go to Exit in the roght hand side, click it, select (the default) save and let it boot.

Check whether it worked in TaskManager - Performance tab.

You can do this "from" any form of OS (incl. RAM).


What's setable regarding this is out of my sight. However, what's set can be seen and utilized. That happens by standard. No software changes needed for that.

Kind regards,
Peter

All,

I'll insert a link here to the possibility of the setting of the number of Cores in the Stealth Mach III :

The greatest invention in/for Audio (Lush^2) (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4071.msg43516#msg43516)

Over there is has been combined with the Lush^2 USB cable, but both are different subjects, though were used together to explain behavior of actually both.
I hope this keeps it clean better. Above this post I just combined with two post from over there because they really belong over here.

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the instructions regarding the reduction in the number of cores used by the CPU. I'll give it a try.

Michael

I received the Stealth III (14/28) a few days ago, along with the Lush^2, and have just started to listen.

I started to listen with the though "I must post something on the forum about the sound" when a very strange thing happened.  I wanted to write not about the sound, but about the MUSIC.

I wanted to tell everyone about the performers, compositions, songs I was listening to.   The "system" faded completely into the background.  I was left with, and lost in, the MUSIC--real, palpable, exquisite.

Much more later--

Man, I read this this morning with pleasure and real interest. I thought of the psychology in order ...
And then this happened to me tonight. Never ever happened in say 12 x 350 (years) listening sessions :

I forgot to turn up the volume after 20 minutes or so, knowing about all needs to warm up (what only happens at real playback).
I just for-got.
But so intrigued I was/am with the new sound. Of course I also have the Mach III and this surely is crucial, but in my case I continued a new Lush^2 setting I tried yesterday late.
:heat::heat:

Btw, I don't think this is related to "not necessary to play ouder" as such. It is just the psyche and my focus on whatever all happens, that I forgot to do it.
Feels a bit similar to your experience, Ramesh. That's why I post this.

Great(est) stuff.
... which btw lets us look deeper into the infinite possibilities of audio in general, with the Mach III as a base, but maybe the Lush^2 of equally importance ?

Thank you, Ramesh.
Peter

A conclusion first: the upgrade to the Mach III and Lush^2 result in the biggest jump in SQ compared to everything that came before.  I am quite sure everything that came before was necessary (G3, Blaxius, 2.10, etc.) but the Mach III and Lush^2 are completely transformative--the change feels qualitatively different, like the music is now in a different dimension.

I am actually at a loss for words, other than to say, music is much more REAL and palpable.  I know we've often said about the SQ "feels like the musicians are in the room" but this is a little different.  The music is now in the environment, like all other sounds, so that very often I found myself instinctively reacting "what was that?" like you would if you suddenly heard a sound in the environment--a glass being placed on a table, something dropping to the floor, a door closing, book falling in the bookcase, etc. 

Something is different at a bodily level.  Imagine you are in room and someone suddenly hits a cymbal, even though you expect it, the sound is startling.  The music now has this startling quality.  Again imagine someone suddenly starting to sing in a room.  Again startling even if you expect it.

I'll try to find words, but the biggest change feels to me like the music has now become a part of the environment, so the "real" sounds in the environment are not different from the "recorded" sound in the room.

I'm sure much more needs to be optimized.  But it feels like the foundation provided by the Mach III and Lush^2 are at a whole new level--I can imagine we are only starting to exploit what might now be possible.

Absolutely fantastic Peter!

Man man man, Ramesh ...
I won't say "if only I could have found these words" (like I said similar to Fred), but there is so much 100% truth in each and every word you wrote down there. Unbelievable.

The phenomenon of bneing startled of a sound and then especially related to something which could really be there in the room, is a known one (at least for me it is). Ever back this started with crying babies where you in a split of a second look around to see where this baby is (this is all unconscious stuff). Later it happened with more sounds, the more the system improved. And lateLY it happens almost continuously. Last night ? I think 5 or 6 times in 90 minutes of time. And then exactly as you say for the examples.
For me it is part of the "spookyness" and it is only that I never thought of writing about it. This, while numerous times you don't understand what happens, look around in the room (everybody doing his thing so it weren't them) and some times more than startling (more heart attack like). So how could I forget to mention it.


Yesterday I had this experience of a woman singing, so so clear and pure (hey, for a well known track, so go figure) that I thought "if this can still be improved upon then I don't know how". So just this simgle element of this singing, of which you can hear, sense and even see that there is nothing to lack.

Not reading back into your super texts and just thinking of what happens to me over here ..., here it is so that then there breaks a glass, then someone opens a door, then something is dropped, then so undefined thing breaks, then there's a siren, watching out of the window but nothing to be seen);
The difference with how it previously was could be testified by the latter example. So I hear this siren, see nothing anywhere, so it has to be in the music. I G-D can't even prove it really, other than noticing that in reality it is not happening (no police car to be seen) or did not happen (can't find a broken glass). And, because this is happening with so many sounds now (all in music you played a 100 times before) it is different than the baby example, because from the baby you kind of know it is not there anyway (OK it was, ever back :)) while the police car really can be there daily, and I must say that more glasses break than desired, as well. Etc. This, Ramesh, is how it makes your description so good and compact. It is all in there (I think).

Is this an other dimension ? YES.
I think I already referred to that in a previous post. Possibly I called it "universe". Anyway, I related it to new audio phenomena required because the normal descriptions don't suffice any more.

Thank you so much, Ramesh.
Peter

OK.  So went back to Mach II tonight.  Lush^2.  I was partly wondering how much of the improvement is the Mach III versus the Lush^2.  It's quite clear that the enormous difference comes from the Mach III.  There is something magical with the Mach III.

Mach II + Lush^2 sounds excellent in every way EXCEPT when compared with the Mach III.  There is something extra going on with the Mach III.  Not sure what it is, but, as I said before, the quality of the music is drastically different.

Thank you for sharing that, Ramesh.

Peter

I have to chime in here as well but I will post in Lush^2 also.

The Mach III brought me to a huge step up in musical realism I had not encountered before. Ramesh it is great to hear your experience is the same. And we are all struggling to find the words while not exaggerating what we are now hearing.

I totally agree I loved the sound of the Mach II with its own step up of musical realism. It never ceases to amaze me that a change in computer is more than A DAC upgrade. More than a digital upgrade. It is a music upgrade.

I am no big fan of the tweaking and fidgeting of all the settings and the idiosyncrasies that come with a computer designed to disappear and get out of the way to let the unadulterated music signal go through itself and through the entire playback system to my ears. Peter is the explorer here. I am content to follow his settings and recommendations. I have never been led astray.

I confess here I am no history buff. In fact I googled this to come up with the name BUT....

Peter is the Henry Hudson of the digital age :clapping:

Maybe a new slogan would be appropriate:

‘Mach III, the best a man can get!’

Regards, Coen

:) :) :)

Last night Music 33 came over and we changed (Dave did but it was easy even for me) from my 14/28 cores to 10/20 in the Bios.

Absolutely stunning transformation AGAIN :shout:

We were there last night just shaking our heads in disbelief. Not sure how much Lush^2 had to do with this but we guessed it did.

So Peter, can I get a refund on those 4 cores I don't need any more :innocent: :whistle:

What was the percentage ?
So you know, this gets a bit dangerous because say bourbon of 40% now will become 40%^2. Fysiologically this may bring some problems, while physics tell me it can't even exist.
All I can say is that because you were with 2, you can devide the 40^2 by 2. But I promise : this doesn't help much.

Peter

Well Fred and others ...


Fred is up to the next task, and Dave may not be coming around soon again (he feels teased). So Fred, get out your tools and apply this :

Move the inner memory DIMMS (the both closest to the processor heatsink) to the outermost free slots.

So we want some fun eh ?
Let us know whether you still see 48GB of memory after the change, or that all broke except the hammer. If the former, try more superlatives (or not, as long as it is honest).

Best regards,
Peter :party:

I just recieved by STealth Mach III. Wow!!! /The boot from RAM is even better! I must tell you everything sounds so beautiful, the music sometimes brings tears to my eyes. It is  hard to stop listening to music. You have done such a wonderful job. One of these days I will come see you and buy you a beer.
Thankyou so much for everything! I am glad I had you do this. You are the best!!!!  I love music more than ever!

Hey Keith,

Thank you very much for this kind message. It once again tells me what we are doing this all for.

And yes, by the time you flew over the ocean, lets have that beer together.

Best regards from here,
Peter

Probably firstly an apology for posting directly here.
My ‘excuse’ being that it is only as to the Phasure Mach 111 Audio PC that caused me to contemplate this matter.
To keep it simple, I understand that a vastly superior device that Peter has made available can have a huge effect as to the processing of high resolution audio. Maybe nobody has stated ‘revolutionary’ as yet but this seems to be the basis of the overall comments.
But my question is that when using a ‘streaming service’ such as Tidal, (where I presume little actual ‘processing’ takes place) does the benefit of such a superior device come into play? Basically, to go to the other end of the scale, would a simple laptop PC , (except perhaps re USB for a noiser’ 5 volt line) give the same quality of sound?

Hi there John,



Let me start with this latter one and let me answer Yes.
Now what ...

All what audio is about, where it concerns playback by computer means, is eliminating the influence from current draw (which is spiky). Well, this counts for CD players just the same, but we hardly can influence those by software, nor by hardware unless we rebuild them our own (this is not a regular business, I'd say :)).

When it is about PC's we can well say that the software works together with the hadware. Notice, however, that this is not seen by most or many and that it requires to "be" in this community for a longer time to just know and accept. Thus, I realize this is not you, John. Not yet.  :veryhappy:

The software can make act the hardware as lean as possible.
The leaner the hardware the better the sound. This is related to noise, but the subject is too large to explain. In the end though, via the most various paths, it comes down to less influence on jitter, or IOW less jitter. And if not that, then something we don't quite grasp yet, but the more lean always helps.

So why the Yes, more above ?
Because the overhead of processing is so huge that a "lousy laptop" is overwhelmed by it.
Side note : a laptop, or anything with a too "small" processor (like it being not hefty) must work too hard like an old Trabant trying to do 100 Km/h. It can do it, but with a lot of noise and it won't be there fast (audio is all about speed as in "transients").

But when "we" stream from Tidal, we don't really stream;
XXHighEnd is a memory player all the way, meaning that streaming from Tidal can be regarded as "download to memory in full first and play from there".

With now your first question (quote) above answers, this puts context to the second, and suddenly the answer to that becomes a full stop No.

When we are out of the noisy environment, we can build ourselves a post powerful PC with the most continuous current draw instead of (SMPS) super spiky draw, let the software help doing that, and play all nicely and quietly "locally". No internet connection at that time, and only minimalist LAN connection to control the player in the audio PC, which does not containg anything else than a processor. Not even an SSD or other storage means. Nothing.
No current draw from anything which is not there and no OS (Operating System) attention to anything which is not there.

And tomorrow again better than today because we keep on "inventing". Most often not me, hence you guys out there with good ideas. I will try them though and I will make a product of it you can buy and utilize (literally).

I hope this was something of an understandable answer !
Kind regards,
Peter

PS: And a warm welcome here !

Does anyone ‘see’ the PeterSt as St. Peter :)? No response would be perhaps preferable.
To Peter’s reply re such as Tidal as against high resolution downloads & the practical benefit of using such as the Mach 111.
The Mach 111 is a “memory player”, (never saw it that way, but yes). Are all ‘dedicated audio PC’s seen to be, “memory players”?
OR, are you in fact saying, (in that you indicate ‘Tidal not really streaming’) that even the lowliest of PC’s or even laptops are in fact ‘playing’ as a “memory player “?
Can it be considered that a downloaded high resolution file needs a high level audio PC as against say the device required to play from such as Tidal?
IOW, would it be fair to say, that with such as Tidal, that a piece of music would be ‘deteriorated’ to a much lesser degree, than would a downloaded high resolution audio file if ‘played’ using a laptop PC?
Regards

The Mach III is just a PC with a very specific build, nothing more.  XXHE is the memory player i.e. it loads all of the music file into RAM (memory) before it plays anything.  Some other software can be set to do this, but they don't really do it and they certainly do not do it as well as XXHE (nothing does).



As I stated above, the Mach III is just a windows PC.  How XXHE treats Tidal is quite different to other players:  it does not stream the files (as in a continuous internet connection is required to download the music files); it plays only previously downloaded files and hence treats them exactly the same as normal music files stored on a hard drive that you may own so they sound the same as the ones you would have ripped from a CD or downloaded from elsewhere and stored on your PC.  There is no internet connection to the Mach III at all.

So no, other computers and laptops are not memory players (only software can make a memory player), they are just computers like the Mach III, but hardware wise they are generally quite different to the Mach III.


I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I will answer by saying that to get the best sound from digital all your files, be they from Tidal, a download site or ripped from cd's, need to be treated in the same way on the same hardware.  The Mach III and XXHE is the best way I know to achieve this.



A laptop PC is non-ideal in so many ways regardless of where the music file comes from:  it is a hardware problem.  XXHE used on a laptop will improve the sound one gets from their speakers once some time is spent getting the software set up.  Improve the PC hardware (eg. a Mach III) and the speakers will sound better again.

I hope that answers those questions John.

Cheers,

Anthony

Thank you Anthony
It is clear now that the HXHE is ‘the memory player’.
Just for a better understanding, where does this actually  ‘reside’?
I thought it must be part of, an integral part of the PC.
Obviously it is ‘seperate’, as can be installed on even a laptop.
So now with my basic questions answered, (& reckoning that from what has been said, that an extremely high percentage of those using Tidal are not getting the best sound) I, as asked above, would just like this clarification as to the ‘relationship/usage’ of the ‘memory player’ to the Mach 111. 
Regards

John,

There is playback software (XXHighEnd)
and there is a PC to use that playback software (your laptop, any other PC or e.g. the Mach III LPS.
plus that same PC outputs the audio data to a D/A converter.

Confusing could be that the board we're posting right now, is named "XXHighEnd PC" which means as much as : a PC created for Audio Playback by Phasure. The first version of that was literally named "XXHighEnd PC".

2nd incarnation was the Mach II LPS which was passively cooled and with Linar Power Supply inside.

3rd and current version is the Mach III LPS, also with a LPS inside but now based on a Server Motherboard and further principles.

All three (could) use the same RAM-OS Disk which is a software quite created by Phasure and which disk (ssd) contains several Operating Systems each bootable into memory through XXHighEnd itself, and after which boot the disk/ssd can be removed from the system. The Mach II and Mach III anticipate the music data (as many and as large disks as you want) elsewhere, reachable over the LAN (Ethernet cable to e.g. an other PC, where that other PC (the "Music Server PC")  can be your old laptop, that providing thus the music data to the "Audio PC").

Yes, XXHighEnd runs on any Windows based PC (from of Vista).

The Mach II and Mach III PC's go together with XXHighEnd because XXHighEnd largely make them run lean, which is related to much lower power consumption (think 40-50W instead of 130W+). This in itself is required to let all run cool but meanwhile - and which is partly the same - let the processor run at very low clock cycles. This, while the processor is a hefty (Xeon) one.
The trick thus is to let run the Ferrari at a smooth 100, while it takes no effort at all to quickly go to 130 when it is needed for a period of 0.2 seconds, which also makes the effort unnoticable (inaudible).

Best regards,
Peter

PS: With further questions (which is very OK in itself) please take care not to go off topic, which is very easy, obviously. This topic is about a specific PC and it is easy enough to make a new topic and in the best suiting board. Btw, not at all saying that it was off topic already.

Hi Peter,

Is it still the better configuration(SQ wise) to operate 10/20 cores instead of 14/28 cores on the Mach III 14/28?

Honestly I haven’t attempted 14/28 since day one.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,


But did you set it to 10/20 then (at day 1) ?
I think I didn't ... (while you aked). Or did I ?

Regards,
Peter

Yes, I set it to 10/20.

Arvind - Then I would leave it like that.
But you can try 14/28 if you want of course.

I myself don't have new insight (I have a poor native) 10/20.

Peter

Hi Peter,

maybe you wonder why you didn’t get any messages from me after you sent me my new Mach III with the Lush^2 more than two weeks ago.

The installation into my home network etc. was done in 1/2 hour without any problems, as this one is already the third Stealth you made for me in the last 2 1/2 years ;-)
The first short listening sessions before I travelled to Switzerland and again to Croatia exceeded all my expectations by far.

But today, after I finally changed the processor settings in the BIOS to 10/20 cores, I am completly bemazed.
There is ease and airiness in the sound, incredible finesse and clarity in the soundstage. Precision and warmth combined in a way I wouldn‘t have thought that it’s possible at all.

And... this kind of ease what I sometimes experienced with top level vinyl recordings on a top level turntable comes together with spectacular 3D resolution what vinyl will never give you. So... the best of both worlds, I would say.

Thank you, Peter!

Richard

Oh Richard, wow ...

Indeed it shouldn't have been a day longer before hearing back from you or otherwise I would have dropped you an email whether you'd may need help of some sort.
But I know you ... you aren't going to express about something until/unless you are 100% sure about what you write. So I sticked to that (idea) ...


OK, so that really does tricks, right ? Of course it is what I found myself already, but because I "grant" myself a small week always before I am sure myself, and because this time is never really there (or a customer like you must wait an additional week), it's only the "snapshot" idea of the moment that keeps resident in my memory, never knowing whether it was the moment of the day, back at that time (/ moment).
So let's state it just works and that from now on the Mach III goes out with any 14/28 set to 10/20 ? ... it still feels like stealing, but alas. :)


Personally I think in the end it is there where our focus should be; the airiness indeed, combined with the clarity which can't be expressed by means of words, but with finesse and especially ease. I emphasized two phenomena there and both theoretically counteract each other. But more and more it seems that just these too coincide. Maybe I can form some theories around this. Maybe my next post (in the Cables board) will attempt that ...


I strangely quoted that text from Keith. Like so many, nobody heard of him prior to his message about the Stealth III, but I can assure you that Keith has been a valuable customer for more than 10 years. Personally I think Keith is a bit special (well, aren't we all) because of a "main" product he is selling (10 years ago and beyond and today still) and which is so 180 degrees an other product that it makes his small message (quote) much more valuable if you'd know what I am talking about. Now I don't know whether he sees this post, but if he does I hope he likes to eleborate a little.

Thank you Richard !
Peter

Hi there,

after a few more weeks of listening with my new Mach III, without visiting this forum, I was wondering today: Why there are no new messages under this topic?
But then I thought: yes... most likely all others are just enjoying the superb sound as I do and there is no need to go further towards the better because it is hard to imagine that there is any better (although we all know that there always is something to improve).
For more than a month now, like never before, I am just pleased with the SQ and there is no more intention to change anything.
Ok, once I tried different settings of the Lush^2 but came back to the original one. That‘s all I did.
 So, I don‘t want to repeat what I already stated above. I just want to confirm it, because after some time of listening, you really know...

Peter, one more time I want to say: thank you!

Richard,

Only yesterday I was thinking the same. But there is a general malaise going on in our audioland and this could be about being overwhelmed. Personally I can just sense that and it would be similar to me not being able to change drastically each other month. I mean, why did you not get yourself a pair of Blaxius^2 interlinks yet ?

Well ?

Hahaha

But it is a good example about myself. And this is thus what I was thinking of yesterday : I should possibily be raving about the Mach III once in a while and in this Mach III topic, but more honest would be to rave about the Blaxius^2 in *that* thread. But would it ? Maybe not because the base sound, I'm sure, comes from the Mach III. Still without the Blaxius^2 the sound would be nowhere near what I have today.
Or is it the Lush^2 ?
Well, surely Yes again because if I change its config to "a lesser one" all collapses again.

Some people are still getting used to their NOS1a/G3 upgrade. They just *can't* and get a new PC and get a new USB cable and get a new interlink, and when they're done they find out that possibly the internet cable should be changed into an ET^2.

Btw, yesterday we finished a first production HDMI^2 cable. No need to really tell about it because this environment (XXHighEnd in general) seems not to be in that direction. Or are we ?

Goof example for myself again : Did I finally make (have made) a Lush for my HT endeavours ? or a Clairixa for that matter ?
No. But I should have years ago. Good that I skipped because now it can be a Lush^2. Saves money ? yes, so to speak. But I'm just not up to all these changes.
So now I use the Blaxius^2 myself and the HT movies are suddenly outrageously good. Do I exaggerate ? no. But I had them made because they had to be tested because people asked for them (this is mostly outside of this forum). Same with the Lush^2. I was asked. Btw same with ET^2 and same with HDMI^2. Blahblahblah. But now I see what the Blaxius^2 does to the HT experience, shouldn't I fi-nal-ly make that Lush^2 for the HT connection ? (this is another PC somewhere down the basement). And what about the ET^2 then ? at least that could involve audio itself (goes to the same PC as mentioned Lush^2 should go to).

Another answer is : Lush^2's go out each day (since it exists). But the public response to them soon stopped. In here (Phasure) it never has been anything much to begin with, still 50 or so of the known people (to you and me) own one. Ha, this includes you.

Summarized, IMHO people can't keep on changing and they also can't keep on raving. I try, but it is quite difficult to not repeat yourself or another.
Meanwhile people like you may think that nobody agrees with you or that nobody buys anything. But the truth couldn't be farther.
Look at my post in the Lush^2 topic and how I asked to better stop writing myself. Two or so people said "no, please continue !" ... and next they don't say anything themselves.
Must we blame someone ? no. This is how it goes these days.

Everybody (or most) is silently happy.

Apologies for my bit of Saturday morning rant, but I suppose I agree with your gist, Richard.

Kind regards and thank you !
Peter

Hi all
I find myself guilty of a lack of posting for a little while now :sad:

But it has not been from any malaise. Truth is I've been super busy at work and most of my spare time has been spent listening. The music has been sounding incredible.

It is time to change my system signature as I have new speakers...or should I say old...older than I am. Custom made Altec 288 from the late 1940s converted to 277 field coils.

A system only sounds as good as its source. With the  Mach III, NOS1a/G3, Lush^2 I have the most musical source I have ever heard. Peter, keep an eye out for a new order at the online shop for a Blaxius^2. 8)

Sorry for an OT post here a in couple of ways, BUT I was 16 years old when The Beatles White album, Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, and Moody Blues In Search of the Lost Chord all came out in 1968. The remastered 50th anniversary albums are fantastic to these old ears. They are just sublime in my system.

Speakers older than I am, playing 50 year old music sounding better than ever through a 21st century state of the art Phasure Digital music source. It doesn't get better than this....Until Peter says it does :yahoo:

Oh Fred ... what a great posting once again.

:love:
Peter

Hi Peter,

I have a question regarding the USB port to use. In your signature you mention 'USB3 from MoBo'. Does this mean that your Lush^2 cable is directly connected to the USB port located on the MoBo?

If so, then the MoBo in your Mach III is probably different from mine. Mine is the AsRock model EPC621D8A. On this latter the onboard USB port is located directly underneath the SSD drive of the Mach III. This makes it impossible to connect a cable. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Michael

Hi Michael,

"MoBo" USB3 ports are on the back of the motherboard just the same ...
In the most common language "we" refer to those. That there's also one upright in the middle of the motherboard is true but this is not common hence not common language that I know.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the clarification.

Michael

And Michael, might it help - I am using (seen from the back) the right-most bottom one.
Not that I ever tried an other ...  :)

Peter

Hi Peter,
Seems like the new Phasue Mach III is the way to go, so I consider replacing my old Mach II :sorry:

Reading through this and the other treads, there are some issues raising that I hope you can enlighten for me:

1. From what I read in your postings, the SQ-difference between Mach II and the new Mach III with 10 cores is in the same league as the difference between the 10 and 14/16 cores CPUs in the new Mach III. Is it still so, or is the 10 cores CPU closing in on the higher cores CPUs? It’s hard to see why 10 Cores version sounds that different from the higher number cores CPUs, if the CPUs are technical identical, except for the core-numbers and the CPU-cache size! And the higher cores-CPUs sound even better when you make them work with 10 cores only!

2. If they are not equal, is the 12 cores CPU similar to the 10 or to the 14 cores CPU? I ask because the sweetspot regarding which CPU to choose seems to be the 12 cores version. After all, 750Euros (incl our VAT) less than the 14 cores CPU is a lot of money if they do sound the same! At the same time, using the 10-Cores CPU seems meaningless when 1250 (again including our VAT) more Euros give a much better SQ from an already expensive PC!

3. So, the big question remains, do you plan to listen to the 12 cores CPU, and are they available? There are several versions of the Xenon Gold CPUs with the same core-numbers, is it OK to ask which 12cores CPU you use?

The lifespan for these PCs are short, and second hand value low. Feeding Intel with unnecessary money doesn’t feel right :grazy:

Regards Stein

Hey Stein,

:wacko::wacko:

I will try to read your post tomorrow with a fresh mind; tonight it makes me too dizzy. Haha.

But but an attempt for a thorough answer : the Mach II and Mach III don't resemble anywhere SQ wise. I mean, it is not related to CPU cores among them. I could also say :

The number of cores (hence the CPU) in the Mach II may matter a little (which even could be a psychological thing) while they matter vastly in the Mach III. You could say : that more detailed the Mach III brings forward the music.

The fact (?) that a 24 core running on 20 cores only sounds better than the 24 running on 24, should be related to "more general resources" available for 20 cores vs 24 cores. Regarding this, think of all the processors of the Scalable family actually running against their "tops", but the one does it with more frequency and the other with more cores. In the end all perform the same but with different means and purposes. Now, things suddenly change when you have available the same resources, but shut off a few cores (but not too many for reasons beyond the scope of this post - *but* which means you can't do this with a too low core count processor).

The 12/24 seems to be in the middle of everything and in my theory it doesn't make sense really. And if you think it does, my advice would be most certainly to take the 10/20. Or try the 12/24 it as the first person ... (if it can be obtained easily - the 14/28 is fine on that these days).


Yes, I would agree on that. *If* I could be thinking of it. :smirk:

Kind regards,
Peter
 

Well, although the story has been told already from an earlier similar experience, today I like to repeat it but with more emphasis, if possible :

Last night was the most painful of this year.

As you may have read in another post from me an hour or so ago, yesterday my Mach III suddenly did not work any more. All right, I tried something which only worked for a few days and apparently that was long enough (never mind what it was ;). Anyway, because this was right against listening time, it couldn't be changed back. But I always had my Mach II somewhere ...
That worked within 5 minutes (I actually love the RAM-OS Disk principe for that !) so off I went.

My perception of if was super positive in advance and actually I kind of felt ashamed already because what would happen if now my Mach II would sound better than the Mach III ? I mean, this could the most easily happen with so many things changed since last May or so. New  software settings I just found two days ago (see topic in Sound Quality), Lush^2, Blaxius^2 ... and indeed, right from of the first tones I was told that the sound was "softer" in the sense of "more palpable". My response : Yea, I hear that too, but mind you, this is the new settings I applied only yesterday in full (session). So I think you hear that. Anyway, I hear it too.

And this was about the last positive to mention about the Mach II.
It was one-big-struggle to get decent sound from it, which I could not achieve by any means (but I left the ^2 cables as they were). So I ended up with finding music, which was so un-articulate that I would not be bothered by the inability to perceive what's said in the lyrics.

The previous time I had to revert to the Mach II for an evening, the latter mentioned was not so obvious. Or at least not that I recall. Now, however, it was (brain)painstakingly painful to not being able to hear what's being sung, while your brain now is used to be able to do that in unsurpassed fashion. Strange.

Anything without lyrics even more so was painful because all was grey and smeared and, well, dead.

My mood got so bad from it that I actually had to cut off the preparation of dinner I was working on.
Yea, sounds silly, I know.

---

With the above - and which is not exaggerated anywhere - I once again want to bring across how super-much the Mach III bring to music and which - as it now turn out - does all on its own. So nothing was changed for environmental matters (no changed cables etc.) but it sounds even more like a drag than I recalled and for which I out of all was 100% prepared (because of the earlier experience). But not.

Might it matter for someone : this is about the 14/28 set to 10/20 Mach II against the 2640 (10/20) of the Mach II. So both (set to) 10/20 and it is thus really not about that.

As you hopefully know, this is not about selling something (also note that Stein - see a few posts back - is currently waiting for his Mach III to finish :)). It is about the sheer guarantee that you miss out if you think that your Mach II is good enough. Well, OK, it is as long as you don't know better, just like I (and so many others) used the Mach II in all happiness for two years. But how fast do our brains adapt to newer situations. It is unbelievable. Really.

Peter

Peter,

Of all the innovations this year, the Mach III has been, without a doubt, the MOST significant.  It really has provided the foundation for a whole new level of SQ. 

Ramesh

MachIII Ethernet Speed:-
With my old PC I used a router ethernet connected to Audio PC to get RDC remote control. The router would not connect via ethernet with MachIII. On Peters advice I solved this problem by using Music PC to make RDC connection to MachIII and another RDC connection via wifi with the router to remote control. This works fine and only one ethernet connection to Mach III needed this way.
Subsequently I found out why router would not connect to MachIII. MachIII will only ethernet connect to 1G/s capable devices and my router was 100K/s max. So if you can't make an ethernet connection with your MachIII this could be the reason.

Colin

Ah, Thank you Colin. This can be useful to others indeed.
Allow me to rephrase this all somewhat so it can be related to the normal situation (I myself have trouble reading this back but I know what you have done - I think :)) :

Tablet (or Laptop) RDC to -> WiFi -> Router -> WiFi -> Music Server PC with WiFi RDC to -> Ethernet cable -> Audio PC
(a bit tongue breaking this, so I hope I put it right)
This situation does not allow the Internet to see the Audio PC (and the other way around), which is good (but if necessary can be realised by means of making a Bridge between the Network Adaptors for the cable vs the WiFi respectively).

The bold part is a kind of unique - at least I never heard someone doing it like that. It relates to the fact that one does not have a Music Server PC with two LAN ports (typical for a laptop) while it has WiFi (again typical for a laptop). So the whole point : the Music Server PC here is a laptop ...


... which I think should read as : The Music Server PC now needs to hve one Ethernet connection only.

The mere crucial one reads here :


So Colin, you already told about this perfectly and I have nothing to add. But what I should sneak in anyway is the sheer "impossibility" to find this as a reason. I suppose I would have thrown all out of the window in such a situation. So, very well found/done !

Thank you for sharing this.
Kind regards,
Peter

Hi there All,

In the OP I now rated the 12/24 equally to the 14/28 and the 16/32. But watch out : while the 14/28 may be marginally "less" (whatever that exactly is) than the 16/32, and the 10/20 has its specialty in a somewhat darker and more "heavy" sound which is very easy to like very much, the 12/24 seems to be the emphasis of the 10/20.

Right ...
What does that all mean and what happened ?
 
By accident I saw a 12/24 available against a "sale" price, so as a rightfully obsessed audiophile I bought it. I mean, nobody would anyway (as it seems after a small year) and without the experience nobody ever will. This, while this processor is significantly cheaper than the next-higher, the 14/28. I mean, 600 euros is a lot of money for something which could work and only was not tried. Also, I figured that would it not work out, I could stuff it into an ERP Server Chassis (my other life).

So I struggled ...
At first I thought it was a kind of fine once you spent the money and have some need to judge it as fine (haha) but merely and more over, Ciska here told within a minute or two that this showed "less sharp highs". OK, my attention did not really go there and I also could not really hear what she meant, but that in itself should be a positive. Maybe not only to her, but also to new Mach III customers.
But I wasn't so sure ...

After two days I couldn't bear it any more. The sound was too dark (too much the emphasis of the 10/20) with the notice that I set this 12/24 to 10/20 from about the start and that all the time I contemplated to set it back to 12/24. But I didn't like the hassle (reboot 6 times all together plus attaching the monitor and the like). Instead I put in a 14/28 to see what I actually was missing or what I should achieve with the 12/24 (not knowing how to do it).

So Yes, the 14/28 is more refined. But similar to the 10/20 once you are used to that a bit, you can see what now lacks there (in the 14/28). And G-D I couldn't like it any more. So Yes it is refined, but the 12/28 brings forward things which I couldn't describe really and which just are not present with the 14/28 playing. What a stupid stuff.

A day further it went as far as being fed up with the 14/28 and the 12/24 was dunked back in (someone over here gets crazy of this, because I don't ever do these things myself).
But No, I did NOT like it for the better. Grrr.

I tried all the XXHighEnd settings I could imagine to be of importance here, but it just did not want to help. And - psychological - psychological - psychological ... all this time I was thinking of this kazillion possibilities I would have with cascaded Lush^2 and Blaxius^2 possibilities.
But should I ? Should I really try to solve it by such means ? I mean, the ^2 cables were never attempted to solve issues. Only to improve sound, right ?

I dove into my notes about the Lush^2 and found this description at the 2nd or 3rd configuration I ever tried, and the very first I registered :

---

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W
This showed a super sound.
It completely changes the sound from a somewhat congested (too white) highs to ever so lasting colored cymbals. Btw, this is what I had in mind with it for a change (I found the highs too profound).
What came with it is a super fluid/liquid bass which sings and plays music. I actually never experienced the bass like that.

---

And btw funny, I only now read the last line about the bass. I never saw this when I selected this configuration because I went for the issue with the indeed too white highs.

---

Well, I was cured instantly ! Now I suddenly had this completely different presentation of about all, but with things being right. The highs were now like real metal and with the UN-finesse metal should have. Yeah, "un-finesse", what's that then. Well, that should be too silky and more going towards plastic (this is way too drastically put). Say that it reminds of the Silverstone USB3 card but then with a somewhat higher resolution of the "holes" (I assume that people know what I mean here, and otherwise too bad). It implies a more being present of cymbals and maybe especially hi-hats. They get a life of their own. Not really their own space (which is an other phenomenon) but less blended with the music and more played by a (drummer) person.

But actually it isn't about this, although it solved the problem. Man, it is about that BASS. And first off about that : about how now THAT plays in its own hemisphere. And yes, that seems to be more about "own space" as such, and for a bass this could be what I want with it. I mean, how often have I talked about the electric bass player who is on stage with his separate and personal(ly chosen) amplification and speaker system ? And how unfair is that to us, not being able to replicate that physically ?
Well, IMO this combination of the 12/24 and particular Lush^2 configuration does precisely that.

I am not really sure how to describe the presentation as a whole; maybe it is about the specialty of being able to present umpf in everything where it is required (this even includes voices) without that leading to disco sound. This really gives the music a natural feeling with it never being too lean (thin). I think it will be so that the general character (nature) of it is still a "less sharp" highs which expresses in the very square representation (as in well-rendered transients) being more palpable. Snare drums feel more palpable and if you may attention to real life snares ... they are not so pain staking sharp (especially the maple wood ones are not). So this improves too; more wood (like the shell of the snare) where wood is to be.

So where does this leave current 14/28 and 16/32 owners ?
I wouldn't worry. I used the 16/32 myself for a couple months (a year ago when testing the then new Mach III). It is great. After that I tested the 14/28 - it is great (and I can listen to it regularly because almost everyone buys it and I sneak it in sorry, part of the job :)).
But these are to-tal-ly different for sound. With that, the 12/24 is not a gadget either. And, the very first days (when it was not burned in yet, or my ears weren't) I dedicated it as very Rock oriented (suddenly all the AC-DC sounded great - no, superb with it). This did not change I think, but the rest now plays too. With more umpf. Less light-footed (and light-footed certainly is a virtue too).
I have been thinking about offering an "upgrade", which would be a possibility to exchange (replacing these processors is relatively very easy). But it still would be expensive, whatever *that* exactly is in this crazy world (of audio). Could be 1100 euros plus shipping. But you could exchange. This week this, the other week that. In the end you made a choice and indeed payed a 1100 extra for having the choice. It would require (!) a Lush^2 (but everybody has that, I think).
But do I advise this to anyone ? NO. The (for me psychological) problem is mere in what new Mach III customers to come should be offered. Would that be the 14/28 against more money with a kind of guarantee it is OK ? or would that be the 12/24 against 600 euros less with a 100% guarantee it is special but which you may not like ? ... or would that be the 1100 euros extra again so you can chose ??

One thing : people going for the 10/20 should seriously consider to spend ~300 more and pick the 12/24 ? Not even that. But (and now don't get confuses please) : people who think that for "descriptive reasons" they should go for the 10/20 against 950 more for the 14/28 (let alone the 16/32 which is 1400 more), should go for the 10/20 *and* the 14/28 (not 950 more but 1100 more - not a big deal). Thus with the "descriptive" reasons I mean : if you go for the more dark sound which inherently is better for rock-alike music, then the 10/20 suffices and is normal, while the 12/24 is 5 fold that and could be too much of it. So all what you are doing is contemplating between the more refined sound of the 14/28 (or 16/32) and the somewhat more "heavy" sound of the 10/20 or certainly more heavy sound of the 12/24 together, against about the same price.

OK, I better stop. :wacko:
Peter


PS: The 16/32 is reinstated, assuming odd production problems with it (6 months or so ago) to be behind us by now.

Peter, what did I say some posts ago, maybe the 12/24 is the sweet spot :blush1:

Well, some words about my experience with the Mach III 14/28, I’ve had it for about a month now – upgraded from Mach I to Mach II and now Mach III… And just to make it clear, I do not for a second miss some umpf with the 14/28 in my setup, it’s there in spades.  And the mentioned light-foot sound presentation I will say is its force – the more liquid and refined sound presentation is what I’ve always been looking for, my choice of hi-fi components reflects this.
 
Peter has said much about his Mach III SQ-impressions with his Phasure NOS1, myself I still have an older none NOS DAC, but interesting to see that I recognize many of Peters words about the new SQ.

First, the upgrade to Mach III was a bigger step than going from Mach I to Mach II, I agree with one of Peters description, the sound from the Mach III is like using a new DAC-technology.

The main difference is increased realism, like going from HD to 4K resolution on you TV. Listening to Sade, Kari Bremnes or other female singers, all sorts of muddiness, glory-filters, photo retouching, or whatever we shall call it, they are all gone. What is left is an utterly clean and natural voice, and a liquidity in the sound that is addictive. In addition, the holography and 3D-feeling are extremely good, if the soundtrack has preserved this information in a god way - the difference between a good and a bad recording however is shown even more clearly now

It’s indeed interesting to see/hear how much the PC’s influences the DAC, and how sound can be bettered in my setup, even if the the DAC and loudspeakers are not any longer the newest models.

Regarding the price for the PC, I did some research before upgrading this time, and evaluated several other Audio-PC products. They all costed the same, or more than the Mach III. I admit some with better design than the Mach, but they were all PC’s put together with old/low class PC-parts and CPUs. Parts costing considerably less than what Peter uses. At the end, the choice was easy, Peters PC is indeed in another class than the rest out there!

A final tip, take off the lid and replace it with a black cardboard, sounds better :coocoo:

Regards
Stein

Hi Stein,

I am the most happy with your counterweight because it is mighty difficult to in all honesty describe what I experience for the good cause of the Mach III becoming a bit more affordable. And this in the midst of people like you just having obtained the higher priced which should be for a good reason just the same.

I like to leave at at this and hope that people now have a well balanced description of everything.

Kind regards and thanks a lot,
Peter

PS: I will think about this cardboard because you may very well be right (and it is not the first time you are offering this suggestion :)).

Hi Peter,

Does this mean that those who have the 14/28 Mach III should attempt setting the cores to 12/24 & see if it’s better than their existing core settings?

Best Regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,

No. Or at least I don't know because I never tried that (but you can :)).

Btw, notice that the 12/24 explicitly sounds "bad" when it is set at its full "core power" (12/24). Set to 10/20, it sounds superb to these ears.

Best regards,
Peter

Should I be alarmed my Mach III since latest Xx settings is running temperature wise at 63 to 65c at idle no music. I have 2nd switch down anyway but now on occasions emergency bright light comes on. CPU can take up to 76c I guess continuous. We are in winter with house heating. Should I have 1st switch down also? I normally leave it on 24/7.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Not necessary to be alarmed because it will keep it under control. Btw notice that the means you use to observe the temperatures will let rise the temperatures just the same.

Point is : with the extra fan power (2nd switch) the sound may deteriorate a little. Will that be noticeable - maybe not. I have it down as well.
If you "mangled" with the other settings (set to 1 and set to 0) and you recognize it is since then, then I would restore those to how it was (they have fairly high impact).
See my settings below which are good to go.

The main culprit could be the Balanced Load set too high (see mine at 62), but notice that when you bring up XXHighEnd after playback, the normally cooling feature - never mind playing - will not be active. Thus, you may test all with XXHighEnd crossed away again (then cooling is again active) and leave it like that when not playing.
This way you can't see temperatures, but you might see the light not coming on now.

I have that light always in sight and I think it is a good habit.

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Peter I'm running your photo of settings didn't make any difference in temp. Anyway here's what I have observed:

Overnight (Idle) temp runs at 56c to 60c with Xx up but not playing with 2nd switch down.

Both switches down temp is 40c no music.

Sound quality is worse with 1st (emergency) switch down during playback but ok with 2nd switch down only.

Temp with Xx playing music 64 to 67c with 2nd switch down.

Tj is 87c according to Temp App.

Is temps of 60 to 67c bad long term for CPU/listening?

 
Robert



 

Hi Robert,


I assume you know that this is the maximum temperature before the processor will throttle down. If all is right, it should never reach that.


Not at all. It is made to be like that.

What you noticed about the first switch is correct; that is (indeed) for emergency, like being in the BIOS for a long time (that implies running at max) or just having all cool when you are not playing (theoretically it is better for the longevity). Using the switch (down) almost explicitly implies bad sound because of (electrical) oscillation of fans.

Best regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter.

Actually after taking the lid off today and giving all inside a good dust off especially normal fan which was covered plus cooler fins, all is running cooler now by about 10 degrees. It has been a year since new and we had a hot dusty summer.

Robert

Yes, this surely (and obviously) makes a difference.
Very well found !

Peter

Have to say running Xx with only 2nd fan switch down temp runs at 46c to 50c. This is 17c lower now.

There is one thing I did which was a number of case holes on the top side were powder coated over. I cleaned these out. I think this has made the difference. These case holes are over the top of the CPU cooler. I actually can't believe the difference in temp now. I mean the dust wasn't that bad inside.
I'm trying the 2nd switch at up now.

Robert

Seriously ?!
Wow, I don't think we ever payed attention to that. But we will from of now !

Thank you, Robert.
Peter

I tried 2nd fan switch up and running temps as recorded 54c to 58c. About 10 degrees hotter than down.

In comparing audio quality between these fan settings very little in it.
I will leave it down as our ambient room temp grows with summer.

This is with an average room temp of 22 degrees C.

I'd recommend anyone with a Mach computer/or other similar should remove dust at least twice a year and check all ventilation case holes are clear.

Robert

Has anyone experienced in unattended mode with shortcut keys when pressed Alt-N to get to the next song - that it starts playing a few seconds - then stops and starts again....

May be something in the settings that might avoid that - also sometimes it does not go to the next song but the one after it...

Thank you
Muni

I find the shortcut keys quite sensitive to touch. Short and sharp strokes otherwise it can jump to next track or stop then start.

Yes, I experience the same, ever since model 2.11 I think.

It doesn't really bother me, but if it can be avoided, it would be nice.

Regards,

Stanley

I don't use an Ipad - in so far shouldn't happen with the mouse....or?

here is a song which shows what I mean...

the solution found me...

The settings that made it work are in my system:

Q1 11, xQ1 3, Q3 4, Q4 1, Q5 1 SFS 0,69

core 3-5  Clock Res  10ms

While the most important factor was the Q3 settings - that changed everything - the reast is more or less soundcosmetics which are very effective .

Great - now listening...

Thank you Peter for this crazy machine..... :)

Hi Muni I use a keyboard and mouse on my music server, rarely use remote Ipad.

I see you have played with settings. I'm not sure if you are aware but Peter has changed his settings a little way back but has not updated his signature. Mind you these settings are always evolving may be old now.

Check my settings certainly soundwise are excellent. Ignore my cracks off setting but numbers are correct.

Robert

A bit late to the show ...
Yes, that repeat is normal, although not intentional. But I can't solve it either.
It's just XXHighEnd and not related to the PC at all. Is not related to shortcuts or keypresses or click etc. whatsoever.
It is only related to buffer sizes (of the various kinds present).

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: Yes, I should finally be firm in my current settings as of 2 months by now. A real game changer.