All,

I only now see that no pictures are shown in most topics/posts.
Probably this is going on since 5-6 weeks, when a "final" (ahem) rigorous change was pushed through. It will NOT be easy to restore the properly working situation soon. But, working on it ...

Peter

Apologies for a super late response.

Nah ... all around the infrastructure changed over here, which incorporates the move of domain names (20-30). Some of them still haven't moved.

The websites and forums are also still not really up and running. For example, the Phasure forum as such is there, but the server providing most pictures is still not.
All is also a matter of capacity (of e.g. me myself) and how such a big move appears to require 2 months or so. On a side note (or not) : .com domains just formally don't move instantly. They take 5 days in general before ... you find out something did not work at all. A stinking system.

Anyway, I see that phasure.nl has been done as a first. But apparently it does not couple through yet to the Phasure forum. My bad (as often). But this is the thing (IMO) - when not all is aboard yet, you can't set it up consistently (this is related to forwarding and aliases and all).

The forum runs on different hardware now, which is why it may load faster. The glass link is also 10 times faster.
While it runs under Linux it should have run under Windows (which it did for a couple of days).
While it runs this old version of the forum software, it should run under newer, and it did for a couple of days.
But this all did not come together consistently, so for now this was reverted. Again related to capacity and priorities ...

Thank you all for your patience !
Peter

... and the past 10 days or so.

I sure hope we can resolve the issue soon !
Peter

Hi there Tomand,

Please notice and watch out : I only see this port today because we are working on this (and other) forums to upgrade it, so most of the time it has been down the past week (or two). Your post will remain in the upgraded version (possibly ready today or tomorrow) by this post from me will not. But if I think of it, I may save it and paste it in the new version of the forum. Anyway for an answer :

I would need to look it up, but your 120VA seems right for AC (I think for DC it's a bit more).
You must take it that it all *just* fits / matches. This is related to the heat dissipation and the being less efficient the more hot things get. Clear example (On Topic) : would the boot time ~double from just over 2 minutes to e.g. 5 minutes, then booting will not be possible. Unless maybe when actively cooled by an external device (not drawing power from the Mach III itself).

What you imply with the 384 GB of RAM will incur for 384/48 = 8 times longer booting. Thus 16-20 minutes.
I think you may blow up everything because it may go unnoticed to you that things keep on going while in full power - unprotected mode (this is how the BIOS mode works - including TurboBoost active).
You *will* notice because you see the counter which reads into memory, stalls.
Btw, I take it that you want to use more memory thus you also increased the VHD file. It is there were it goes wrong. And without doing this, I think the memory-increase is (literally) useless ?

Something quite else : the more RAM will consume so much more power that this more 99% sure will not work.

If you like to know more, just ask.
Best regards,
Peter

Hi there Drew,

I can not be sure at all, but it looks like you may have taken a short cut on the reinstall of XXHighEnd. Something like : "let's do the base of that and next copy back from some folder structure I saved".
... And that won't work ...

I don't recall that this happened to anyone, but I see it described in the code. So the remedy is also not really known. Yeah, reinstall the Windows OS again and reinstall XXHighEnd from scratch and re-do all the settings of that (if you know those in the first place).

What you also could attempt as a first :
- Delete your XXHighEnd folder and its sub folders.
- Delete the XXDat folder you pointed at during the initial install (or else look for folders named like that).
- Ask a for a new Activation Code per email (you will receive instructions on how to implement that).

If you did not restore anything of the kind I suggested, please say so. Then we must look for an other reason, or else it may (will ?) happen again.

I may not respond immediately to emails, as I am not always there to monitor it.

Best regards for now,
Peter

Hi Erwin,

Apologies about a late reply.

Of course you don't need to worry about the pinout, or else numerous people would have problems with the connection (which theoretically would be about Absolute Phase only, which can be inversed in software anyway).

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Dave,

Glad that you found something. But if not sure after all, please notice that these days you won't have real reasons for the integrated CD/DVD drive. That will make your search a lot easier.

If the USB does not work there, then no big deal.

Snapped wires ? I don't recall that much. But if you did not do/cause that, then fine.

Best regards,
Peter

Ramesh,

What you probably ran into, is just the building of the first time total structure. For me this takes an hour just the same. After this has been built, it is memorized (stored on disk). But also : newly added albums will only appear in that total list when it is rebuilt. This is a matter of asking for it via Search with no search arguments, tell it not to get from Tidal and some more; you will see it happening when the question appears : "Do you really want to ..." (and then mentioning the number of entries). This is to be answered by No, unless you'd explicitly want to rebuild it (and lose the PC for an hour or so).

Anyway, that was it ...

Regards,
Peter

In the other topic about this (Problem with XXHE not loading directory), you mentioned that even with Explorer you could not access a particular folder. OK, you solved that by changing access rights, but ... WHY ?
So it is probably something in this realm. The OS on that PC is not right or different or ... the OS is just too different (like W11 or a too new 10).

Regards,
Peter

Then I'd rather say it is the PC ?
(but this is a first quick response)

All what Anthony said is correct.
Input impedance of the Orelo is IIRC around 80K Ohm.


Pete, this depends on what you actually are going to do with it. You suggest to try another fine (XLR) cable. But if this is really so - and nothing else, then this obviously won't work because your Orelo does not have balanced inputs.
If this is, however, about a 2nd NOS1 you possess and this is to be connected to something very else with balanced inputs, then fine in itself. But I am not so sure about this, and thus :

The answer is No. In whatever event you can't hope for anything good with a cable made for balanced purpose (your XLR) to behave in any good fashion if it is used as an RCA cable with a wrong impedance on top of it (not that RCA bears a formal impedance but alas).

I see another combination : you do have that 2nd NOS1 and want to try this with your fine XLR on your Orelos ... 
... forget it.
In that case you can leave the old BNC connection be - which you BTW can do anyway, but it will be a total mess electrically. Not that things will explode (all voltages will remain fine) but it will sound like a drag; The half of the XLR you will be using will be worse than a pair of shoe lashes as nothing in that cable will be made / be shielded etc. etc. for single ended operation.

The upside of this all will be that - also with your own original NOS1 you could do this, besides your BNC connection (this is what you asked about too). Thus, no harm done to anything for the BNC connection. But ...

Now this puzzle is pieced together somewhat for me, you won't even had the additionally required wires for a proper XLR connection (they are not hanging loose somewhere in there).
Lastly, electrically such a "faulty" connection has never been tried by me, and again I say the same : it will sound like a drag.
Side note (or not) : I recall a most simple desired combination of two pairs of outputs chosen from RCA, BNC and XLR (but I forgot which), and there was no way I could make that sounding right. The customer in order received an "impossible" from me. But that was judged with my ears and such. What you seem to head for is similar. Thus, what I am saying here is that because of your "illegal" XLR connection, your BNC will sound wrong too. "Will" ? I can't guarantee it.

Do notice please, that all what is impedance "draws" on the output. In this case this is quite directly D/A converter chips (with only one tiny resistor in the path) which have a relation among hem as well (2x 2 for one channel). Thus, draw on this wrongly (or untested) and the one will tear down the other (read : your half-XLR will draw on the other BNC, whether XLR is used or not (not used : means : open ended AKA not terminated). This is fine when it sounds fine. And if you really paid attention, you noticed that this drawing could be on the same chip- half, or the other (of one channel). With Single Ended one half is used for both outputs (like BNC + RCA). With XLR, both halves are used. With half-XLR maybe the other half should be used. LOL.

Try it and let us know ?
And have fun of course !

Peter

Hey man,

Indeed the 33 Ohm was original and intended to be the lowest possible while all still decently working. This was for RCA and XLR the same. However, since BNC is a 75 Ohm official path, those resistors where replaced with 75 Ohm.
Leave that be when changing to XLR ? this is harmless, but the relation with the device at the other end will be slightly worse. Officially, when the other end bears 600 Ohm (a typical pre-amp I think ?) then the 75 is just a tad too high (and the 33 is fine).

Where to put which wire is somewhat harder for me to explain because I don't know how the DAC in question was set up or changed and how "obvious" the wires are visible on their function. However, I suppose that first changing the hot from XLR to "a" pin on XLR is fine always, as long as you apply it the same for both channels. And the other wire (per channel) goes to the other pin. All you could imply is a reverse absolute phase but if you use XXHighEnd, that's settable in there.

Best regards !
Peter

(maybe) Try to interpret that Refresh button as it is intended (LOL). The ToolTip on it could help.
I don't know better than hat this robustly works. But maybe it can conflict with your own setting (which is not persistent) ? Thus, reboot so that your own setting is out of the way, and then next work with the XXHE setting. And of course do that in non-RAM mode. When that works, you can boot from RAM and it will work from there too.

Hi Ramesh,

XXHighEnd takes care of that adequately. See below.

Regards,
Peter