Quantum Heaven

[Scroobius]

Well Peter I have to say this all really sounds interesting and more & more intriguing. You have not told us (understandably) much about the coming upgrade other than it is simple and not requiring return of the box to Holland (phew!) and I sort of infer that it is not invasive so possibly it will not even be necessary to take the lid off the NOS (well of course that is just a guess).

And maybe just maybe all of this is beginning to sound just a bit like some of the quantum products out there like the "Quantum Symphony" that just needs to be switched on near the hifi system. Well who knows if that device works or not. But there are other "stories" about quantum devices fitted in one piece of wire having a beneficial effect on some or all other wires in the system even though nothing is directly connected to them. Well all this is science fiction stuff to be sure.

But if what you are about to propose is not invasive and requires something(s) to be placed near to or aligned in a particular way - well it all starts to sound just a little bit like some of the weird Science Fiction Quantum stuff above.

Well maybe.

To be sure it is beginning to sound as though maybe what you propose could do the same as the Bybee's well if that is the case perhaps I will not hear any difference with your mod and in which case I am going to have to get that soldering out and dive into my speakers again - all to prove that I have just wasted a not inconsiderable amount of money 

On the other hand ........................

All the best

Paul

[Nick]

Paul hi,

Do keep the bybee posts coming, fascinating stuff. I think I understand what you are trying to convey when you talk about neutrality and convincing bass. Also the dislocation of sound from your speakers, this has to be one of my favorite tricks of a really good system.

I would still not be considering investing in Bybees were it not that you have also gone down the bi amp Gainclone route. The link being that we have a common reference point for trying to describe improvements.

I am very interested  to hear what Peter's tweak does and what it is about.


Waiting for further updates,

Best regards,

Nick.

Ps I agree with your comments about the "head room" of gainclones. I have the feeling that at some point they will stifle improvements but so far it just has not happened. Long live cheapfi !

[PeterSt]

Paul,

Can you UNengage Peak Extend and let me know as exact as possible what differences you perceive ?
Try the most high transient music. You know, that kind I sometimes like ...
Don't forget the ~3dB Peak Extend outputs less loud.

Peter


PS: But if you already don't use Peak Extend, do it the other way around.

[Scroobius]

Hey Peter - just started the wine and waiting for dinner guests to arrive so not a good time to do the test ha ha so tomorrow hopefully will get around to doing it.

Nick - GainClones rock - how on earth can they sound so much better than other silly high priced amps - bargain of the century in hifi terms I am sure that there must be better amps around but how much do they cost?

P

[Flecko]

Ok, a strange post maybe. Sure not intended to be aggressive or something ...

Just a misunderstanding I would say.

Adrian, without you realizing it, your last post sounds a tad disrespectful to me. This is because you don't know the NOS1 and what it does, hence how it works out for determining differences. Also, I not only know the NOS1, but I also know Paul, and it really does not need any bit of doubt to plainly believe that what he observes is real (and not a placebo, which tends to be the direction of you post (no, you sure didn't say that, but this is how it feels yes)).

I am also beleave him 100%, otherwise I maybe would not post. I thought or understood that he has also a new amp in his system that is burning in. And changing two things at the same time will always lead to not knowing what of the both things you changed does the trick. I am realy interested in what he finds out and value his opinion.

Whether observing like this (2 seconds) will allow for judging it as "overall better" or the other way around is a complete different matter. This is related to my own means of "judgeing" for which I always take 5 listening evenings (of a couple of hours). And, as you may recall, it happened a couple of times that even at the fifth day I rejected my whatever change.

I am not sure but maybe we agree. My experience is that there are changes in the system that will sound better or more right at once. And if I made a change like that, I stop comparing and start listening. If you have a good system you will not have to make a lot of AB. The difference will show very quick as better or worse. But sometimes it is better to just plug the new device in and listen to it for a longer time without thinking of testing the device. After a while I feel comfortable or not. This is the most secure testing. I guess Paul is experiencing just that. If you swap A and B very quick and both doesn't sound right, then the system is maybe not good.

I realy do not know how good the NOS1 is and I am very curious about it. It will happen to me in this life to listen to it. But until then, I must realy say I am listening to a system that is not the "best" but I can listen to it without the feeling to improve it. I cannot emphasize that enough. It sounds right (natural), detailed and relaxed. Of course I am still interested in trying out new things but I never have listened so much and tested so little. I guess I have a listen/test ratio of 95/5, which I also suggest as a new benchmark for the quality of a hifi system.

[Scroobius]

Hey Peter,

Apologies - I forgot to check out the effect of PeakExtend (PE) but I just remembered and here goes (note with PE engaged I increased the volume +3db compared with not engaged).

There is a noticeable difference (to these ears anyway).

Most noticeable with solo violin and massed strings the sound has a noticeable edge with PE engaged. With synths ie Yello again with high level transient material there is an unmistakable hard edge to the sound. Actually with synth. material some might think it sounds better with PE because the sound has more immediate impact but it does not take long to realise that something does not sound quite right.

So then I went to one of my favourite albums "The Gifted Ones" Basie and Gillespie. I have listened to this many times with PE engaged (my normal setup) and it never sounds anything less than superb. There is very pronounced symbol work on this album which sounds excellent through NOSUSB. Listening without PE those symbols sound even smoother and more natural (but really I did not think there was anyting wrong with them before). Then Gillespie on trumpet comes in and it also sounds smoother more natural. But actually some might think actually less detailed - but I do not think so I think that something is going on with high transients with PE engaged.

Now a BIG note of caution - is PE providing more transient detail / level that my system cannot handle or is there something going on with PE that is not right. I cannot answer that (over to you Peter) but for the time being I will listening with PE off.

I will also do some more listening to double check these results tonight.

Hope this helps.

Paul

[PeterSt]

Important notice about Peak Extension

Well, after reading that back and combining my own results with yours now, I had to read it three times over to straighten my mind again. May happen to you too.

My conclusion is the same as yours. But, with "my tweak" engaged. Before I didn't know or ever really heard the difference. But I guess this is why I asked exactly *you*.

To avoid further confusion : what sounds right *is* wrong. So, not activating Peak Extend should present considerable distortion, but, it should be well beyond the audible range (frequency - think at 26Khz anyway of what I can measure, and nothing around 22KHz). Still this is very well audible ...

Notice that I mentioned to check for the high transients, because their on/off frequency can be higher than Redbook max frequency (say 22049Hz), but it *is* a frequency by itself.

The whole point is : with Peak Extend this is nicely fluently rounded as should be, and without Peak Extend this is sharp edged and containing overshoots.
The exact opposite as how we perceive it.

Here ("my tweak") it does more, because it also broadens the stage. It makes it more natural. So, with Peak Extend Off, hence with the distortion.

In the end what I asked you, is whether you'd perceive the same contradiction as I do here. So, you do.
Now what.

Man, is this confusing. Maybe this helps straightening our minds further (and for later reference) :

Now a BIG note of caution - is PE providing more transient detail / level that my system cannot handle

PE provides more transient PURE detail. A smallest nice half sine for pulses to either plus or minus only.
Not-PE provies as transient detail, but the sine is not a sine and rather a square. So, more overtones again on a base of 26KHz in my case.

A stupid theory can be that the too low frequency for Redbook compared to what real life needs (say 30KHz-40Khz), now is auto-filled by this anomaly. It, btw, follows my line of thinking that sound gets more rough when the highest frequencies are under powered and therefore gaps emerge in between the lower-ish frequencies, that creating the roughness. Somthing like this could be happening beyond the audioband as well, and now that impacts the lower frequencies  (all influences eachother in air). It gets a bit complicated maybe, but I really don't see how higher transients in frequency (!) than Nyquist permits will be filtered out by normal filtering means. So, what I do with my 26KHz is illegal in the first place, but I think it can exist in music. So, it is illegal to be there, but it is there. Now, the NOS1 lets that through perfectly, and it does that where it is allowed (because of the 768 (705.6) sample frequency). Still it can't be like that in normal 44.1 sampled data, and so anomalies occur. This now is "smeared" by the even higher frequencies coming from those squares, them filling in the gaps more smoothly, which otherwise would be there caused by the too low sample rate.

Ok, nobody will understand, and it probably is rubbish anyway. But if something clearly sounds better while it looks like sh*t, I want to know why that is, plus I don't like to not trust my ears.

What remains at this moment, is whether other NOS1 users may come to the same conclusion. I feel this is all such in the detail that possibly only Paul can perceive it. And me now. I really didn't notice it before "my tweak". It is no placebo either, because "my tweak" was at first tested with PE coincidentally off. Later we switched it on and continued listening (all sounding very new in the first place), but at later going back to one of the tracks to show off again, the super-magic seemed gone. Tweak burned-in - bad luck. Until 5 days later I wondered more and more where the general super-magic had gone, and thought of PE again. Switched if off and Bang - there it all happened again.

Ah, there's another warning for those NOT engaging Peak Extend to try :
Do not use a digital attenuation of 10.5 - 12dB (maybe avoid 13.5 as well). Here the phenomenon misbehaves within itself; depending on random stuff beyond me, either channel (never both) may collapse with the attenuated amount. So, set 12dB of attenuation and either channel may drop to -24dB. Often not, but it can.
Please notice that this must be considered XXHighEnd behaviour and nothing like NOS1 or Operating System (the latter as far as I can tell, because it *is* a bug beyond me).

[Scroobius]

Mmmm interesting indeed and I will read in a bit more detail later on. Just a quick couple of points though:

1.  Before Bybees I also did not really notice any difference between PE on or off. And I did try it some time ago  - maybe it did exist but for sure it was not as obvious as it is now.

2.  The improvement Bybee makes is very obvious regardless whether PE is on or off (all the listening tests I did earlier were with the Bybee's installed and with PE on). It is just that with PE on as mentioned the sound has an "edge" on dynamic material.

But I do need to do more listening with PE off to properly get to grips with the changes.

P

[manisandher]

PE provides more transient PURE detail. A smallest nice half sine for pulses to either plus or minus only.
Not-PE provies as transient detail, but the sine is not a sine and rather a square. So, more overtones again on a base of 26KHz in my case.

Haha, quite a while ago I wrote this:

Whenever I use PeakExtend, I seem to lose low-level detail. The ambience of a venue gets lost. Instruments don't quite 'breathe' fully any more. (Of course, I'm taking into account the 3dB attenuation that PE imposes and readjusting the volume control!)

Peter, are you sure that the PE attenuation is done in a good/harmless way??? Could you just check the code when you have a minute please?

I've pretty much always heard a difference between PE on or off. Does this mean that my system is even more revealing than Paul's? Or maybe it's just that my ears are better (I am a little younger after all)... 

Mani.

[Scroobius]

Hey Mani,

HA HA bloomin' HA well for sure your ears are younger than mine (but mine are prettier!). But how the system sounds? - well you are going to have to come here for another listen to know the answer to that (BUT ONLY on condition you bring the NSX) things have changed muchly since your last visit. BUT it does make me wonder what your system would sound like with the Bybee treatment. But then again maybe you will not need to do that with Peter's coming modification. But then again again maybe you will - who knows?. None of us knows ha ha  - What is coming up in the next installment of the Bybee versus Peter's upgrade saga?

Watch this space .......................

P

[Nick]

Demagic undoes this by means of random frequencies and "all amplitutes". It shuffles.
And, it most certainly works. Not that I use it these days (because I always forget anyway), but I should.

I couldn't resist buying the Densen Demagic disk to give it a try. It popped through the post this morning and was duly played. To my relief no UFOs mistook it for a landing signal. Music followed and wow what just happened ? Sound after demagic is more musical with noticeably less grain and tighter and more extended bass. A great tweak for the outlay, thanks for mentioning it Peter.

I am just doing the peak extend / no peak extend test now. There is defiantly a difference am trying to make sense of it before posting more detailes thoughts. Right now I would say that peak extend turned off gives a more natural presentation with good ambiance. Peak extend on has more attack but seems ever so slightly harsh in passages with high dynamic swings.

Rs

N.

[Scroobius]

I know I mentioned improvements in bass before. But just for the record I wanted to mention how considerable and what the nature of those improvements are. Also I mentioned that whilst the improvements to the overall sound were immediately noticeable the improvements in bass crept up almost unnoticed during burn in. But when they arrived they were very very substantial (but maybe not to everyone - see below).

You know when you go to listen to a system (at a hi-fi show or a shop maybe) someone will say "wow listen to this, the bass sounds amazing". Well I have been to hi-fi shows and shops and experienced that many times (and been impressed). Recently I listened to my mate Dave's system (PMC transmission line speakers) the bass sounds extraordinary. Big with lots and lots of hugely impressive slam.

But then when I go to a live small venue Jazz gig with drums, piano, saxophone, double bass etc. (as I do quite often) where basically there is a small stage with 4-5 artists and then crammed in maybe 50-80 people watching (very small and cosy). No one has ever said to me "wow listen to the bass". It just does not sound like the "amazing bass" you get at hifi shows and shops (or even my mate Dave's PMC's - sorry Dave!). But why? all those instruments in such a small space shouldn't the bass "move the earth". Well maybe they do - but not in an obvious way.

So what does the bass in my system sound like now?  well that's just it - it doesn't sound amazing at all at least not in an immediately obvious way. I mean you are sitting listening and the bass is just not obvious - but then almost unnoticed there is a low bass note and what is impressive is that it is very low but it is also fast and most seriously important it is not affecting anything of the higher frequencies. So at once it is "disconnected" from other sounds but also perfectly integrated. Well maybe this is beginning to sound like the horse sh---t you read in a lot of hi-fi magazine reviews but I don't know how else to explain it.

So what is really impressive is that the bass is not impressive at all. Mmmm maybe I am talking horse sh---t. But for those of us that *know* sit and listen to this over an evening and it is just extraordinary. The real problem is that if I dragged someone in off the street or even got my old mum to listen to it they would wonder what the heck I am talking about - they might say it "sounds like it should" or "sounds natural" but I really do think they would NOT be that impressed.

Well I know he he - and the only way to get this kind of change normally is to perform major surgery on the speakers or get a sub woofer or make some other big change to the speakers - except that in this case I have done nothing physical to the speakers - absolutely nothing at all.

So this is actually nothing to do with the speakers - extraordinary.

I get a bit concerned writing stuff like this because someone out there might go and invest in the Bybee's (but NOT before Peter's mod) and might not hear what I hear. Then I would feel really bad.

So just remember my Mum or that random passer by off the street - they probably would not hear much or agree at all.

All the best

Paul

[manisandher]

But how the system sounds? - well you are going to have to come here for another listen to know the answer to that...

Well this is just going to have to wait - the baby should be popping out in the next week or two and I'm not going anywhere unless I really have to - wife's orders.

But the changes you describe sound amazing. I'm not sure how good my 'aural memory' is, but I think I'll be able to tell how much things have changed for the better. But as I've mentioned before, I already thought your system sounded great when I heard it.

Looks like 2012 might be full of audiophile surprises!

Mani.

[Scroobius]

Hey Mani - All the best to you both for your new arrival and I hope you are not in for to many sleepless nights - but I am sure you won't be.

Paul

[PeterSt]

Hey, it's me again !

Of course all what Paul tells has a high degree of exaggeration.
Just take a few, and there you go.

But what's the difference with my place eh ?
Booz is the same, the amount of it is, and the sound ? really, you won't recognize a single thing of it anymore.

Earlier I said that Paul's description of his sound (change) 100% fits mine, except for me adding the wider stage to it. But let me try to add some more emphasis :

My bass was quite alright I think. Well, think back about it yourselves (those who know my system); Now ? now there's all the layers under it which always were lacking. Just a feeling before, but knowledge today.
There's detail in the sub-higher frequencies (I mean, right under them) which is completely crazy.
Yesterday I played Touch (Yellow) once again, and it won't fail in any track anymore (while earlier I could find one which was listenable -> remember the W7 Vanilla, which improved on it). Even this Touch album is not recognizeable anymore. As if it was replayed and rerecorded.

I can't find anything anymore which sounds bad, but maybe I didn't try Griffin yet.

The high frequency output seems lower, but it makes me realize that before it was too high. This, with the strange combination of far more detail being there.
The placement of this detail also is crazy; before it was there alright, but not profound because of the placement in the picture which is unknown. Today ? today things may sweep from meters outside of the speaker to the other one.
General perception is something like a 45 degree angle from your ears to where the sound comes from. In my situation this means that the sound springs from around 2 meters in front of the speakers but from the sidewall (which is some 1.5 meters more aside). Virtually this gives 3 meters outside of the speakers (but the sound won't go outside of the walls, that's why the 1.5 meters towards you is into play).

There is no way depth can be seen anymore. I talked about this before, but now it seems "complete". So, when completely back in the room (12m distance from the speakers in my case), you will hear that the speakers are at the other side of the room. But at the more normal listening distance which is 7 meters in my case, there's no vision of where the speakers are. Of course this is related to that 1.5 meters in front of the speakers where the sound springs from, and the total witdh implied by it, which would be 14 meters in my case). So, listening distance officially is 7 meters, and the width of the stage is 14 meters. This doesn't put you right in the middle, but fairly close to it.
Btw, this was about my earlier expression of listening through headphones, while no headphones are there.

Get Yer Ya Ya's 0ut -always a test album, and which worked quite alright already lately- is a sheer happening now. Now Mr sad drummer which already wasn't sad anymore, is dancing on the stage. Not only a sheer happening, but suddenly a sheer live event.
And then to think that this is a test album for me because it sounded so dull, flat and far away less than a year ago.

"My tweak" is dangerous, which is why it takes a fair amount of time to get the real merits of it, and to dial/tune it in;
Later you will learn that it is beyond Quantum stuff. Oh yes, there always is more - more beyond our understanding. This is one of them, until I understand. Well, maybe by now I do, but that doesn't mean it is under my control. It needs "whisdom" which can't be learned from books maybe. Think Chinese herbs for curement. Those guys just knew it forever and some still do.

To be clear (again) : it is nothing I found out, and it is only an application (and I didn't even find *that* out). It will be the combination with the NOS1 which makes it so special, just because the crazy detail the NOS1 can show in the first place. Now though, that detail has to know its place, and this is where the tweak comes into play. Ancient whisdom ...

There's another observation which looks contrary to what I and most always observe : I won't play louder than 80dB SPL anymore, while at first this was around 90 fo normal-max.
Explanation : well, I sort of already told it in an earlier post : my horns are no horns anymore (same as the headphone principle of course). The energy comes from virtually everywhere (instead of from the speakers - and beamed like horns tend to do), and this makes, as how I see it, no louder "force" necessary. Btw, indirectly the whisdom concerned tells similarly.
There is no single way that it ever seems possible anymore that things sound sharp, edgy, harsh. Impossible, as if it were vinyl. Possibly this is related to the room being so full of sound. Strangely enough this (to me) seems not to be about "energizing" the room. Still sound is everywhere, and the most profound is those underlayers of "bass" (but think "full sound" to grasp it better). Quite the opposite from an untweaked NOS1, but still never heard before.

The latter is related to the full sound which is accompanied with all that detail, and also still no standing waves occurring anywhere. The bass output is so much higher and so much more everywhere in the room, that yesterday I started exlicitly checking each corner and ever back more difficult places. But no.
This exactly fits the "whisdom".

The sound is totally massive, although I have the hunch that the English language doesn't have a proper word for it (I'd try "massale" for a maybe new English word). And then to think I didn'd dare to try a full orchestra yet.
The dynamics at the low end are crazy as well; sounds spring from an octave lower than before, as are the voices of Yello. This, while the attacks in them are as profound (think Cohen or Knopfler). Yes, quite a contradiction again.
Also what I keep on noticing is the vibrato in low basses; a steady good tone before, but now suddenly the vibrato is there. With synths this gives the additional roar effect. Great.

Peter