Ok, about the USB3 only for now ...
As you will know Nick, all these "power" related tweaks or changes, influence largely. And people, we are talking about the mere micro level of changing things. Like another type of capacitor, its size, the number of them. Say, how something like the NOS1 evolved - but now in aftermath. Now :
*If* we are able to memorize the characteristics of applications, so each become elements in that big whole we call our audio chain, then it should become possible to recognize what is going on.
Nicely put eh ? and a truth as the truth (looking for some nice english expression here).
Anyway, I am sort of reasonably capable of that, if only tweaks go one at the time and the base looked (very) good to begin with. Ok ...
Nick, you will know about my (offline) remarks at working on the battery powered NOS1, while you were working from that other angle, and sawing out all voltage regulators you could find. On of the things which could happen at both ends was the lack of highs. Pure blanketed. Particularly wrong sound ? no. Distorted ? the last we'd say about it.
The foremost importance of judging the blanketed sound wrong after all is the sheer lack of distortion without that blanket. So, fairly easy conclusion : that blanket is a blanket indeed, and is not something like taking out distortion - which could be perceived as overly fresh, hence wrong. But mind you, for me this blanket was nothing much different than a well respected Aplha DAC.
In any event, that blanket had to be removed once there, and obviously we removed our tweak, whichever it was at that time.
On my side I could easily see how USB noise would create the exact same characteristic.
So, noise. (totally inaudible, but easily measurable).
USB3 does the same. Well, sort of, and that is the problem. Still, it would be my guess that noise is creating the "USB3 sound", just because what happens is similar.
This is one step in my thinking. It's a wild guess. Ok, next :
Remember how I yesterday talked about how my Nobel winning 0.9z-7 tweak takes out distortion ?
Well, read back on how I started out with that. It was just a couple of weeks before USB3. I couldn't judge it as right on the long term. But now, only reasoning afterwards, what may have happened ?
Today it is 100% clear that this tweak hugely takes out a sort of distortion I won't tell about. It was made for it and from theory, and that all worked out. But, what actually happens ? the sound is again more accurate. Ehm, sound ?
This is the problem, because generally speaking no such thing as "sound is right" exists in digital. It is just too much wrong all over, and we should only be happy we can perceive it as music. Now, with my tweak the accuracy of the being off has to be emphasized. I mean, it can't go otherwise. This should happen in the higher frequencies, like above 5KHz. So, digital is quite wrong, and in the higher frequencies this (mathematically) shows more than in the lower.
All what is noise or general distortion as another layer, will smoothen that out. My tweak smoothens less.
How is it possible that with USB3 all suddenly fell in place ?
I really can think of one thing only : noise again. Should be fairly white, because I can't see it as a frequency.
The character of it (remember ?) is similar to that other USB noise. So, for me all still fits.
Here I must stop for this reasoning (without real conclusion because it can't have one (yet)).
But I didn't say I was finished.
When, in general, noise influences sound for the worse, there will be a clear pattern (visible). Frequencies. Now, all noise will carry a pattern, because it is generated from somewhere. It has an oscillating source. Always. Here too, it is inportant to see the relative difference it makes, because most often that pattern won't show itself because it is burries in that other many sources of noise. Have very many of them, and you will say "oh, that is white noise". Just because all the patterns mix, and the timespan to look over it is too short to see the long term pattern. And a small secret for you all is : the NOS1 has a pattern of over 60 seconds. Ehm, for all of you but 2, including myself 3.
So, imagine that one source pattern and say it is at -130dB. Not inaudibe, because it will be in your music, riding on any wave. It will be a "sharp" thing because it is one pattern only. It will easily show its frequencies in an FFT. It will be baaad.
How to solve it ? add more patterns. Not 100% white (might that exist) because it will only higher the level of it. But so many more that it randomizes whatever there was at first.
Now we sneak back to what USB3 could be doing ...
It seems clear to me (but I didn't sort out a single thing on it) that the higher rate USB3 is capable of, will have a higher frequency oscillating thing somewhere, if not a real oscillator (Nick, what's on that PCIe card ?). This will at least create a higher frequency pattern. It will randomize whatever there was in a fairly nice way.
How to solve it ? add more patterns.
Oh yea ? of course not. The base pattern should be removed. But it is exactly *this* we can not do. We only can theorize what could be creating them, and try to move that out (like voltage regulators). A normal human being can't do that, and maybe technically it is not possible. On this matter, NOS1 users may try to look at their gain stage in there, and see how empty the PCB has become since the first ("Juil@") version. A lot of work, but all focused on exactly this subject.
But *if* we would be able to remove that base pattern left, what next would happen is that now the USB3 pattern gets profound. So, that by itself is not not randomized anymore by the patterns we just took out.
So, hands up for those who want to go back to USB2 ? not mine, not yet. But you can wait for the day I do. Or someone else.
So you see ? I at least have a common sense explanation why USB3 now sounds better. Not that one needs to agree, but it is one. Assumed I am correct :
Do we accept this as better indeed ?
Well, it sounds better, so why not.
Do we have opportunities to improve from the proper angle ?
Maybe. But what comes first is that my assumption has to be correct. It may take years to find that out. But then still the answer is "maybe". So what to do it for ? If it sounds good it sounds good.
But now one which you all may not be familiar with :
If you really go far with this and have spades of experience, you may have another expression for what you hear, and it may go like this : "Wow, this sounds good man ! ok, I am not sure whether it is
right, but it sounds good for sure".
Hey Nick, there you go ! With something like this, you can bet it is NOT right, but sounds good / better net. All you will know (should know !!) is that something is still wrong.
But also to remember (for others) : when we talk about "right" we are ridiculously close to reality - and in dangerous fashion. I mean, from there on nothing much has to happen or you will be totally annoyed.
The all over motto again :
By now we all have USB3 (at least the NOS1 owners I see on this forum seem to). Then there's Windows 8 to name something. Now, if at least one person would have the guts to try USB2 with that, all will be fine. But mind you, still assumed I am right on how USB3 can sound better, it can easily be so that no different hardware is doing it. It can just be the OS and how it deals with the higher frequency (of transport) needed, and that new OS can just make the difference. Or a Service Pack. Or an upgrade (we all of course shut off to begin with).
Ok, done. And then to think this is just the USB3 example.
But hopefully this great group gets the hunch of how we should think and look at things, or otherwise tell me how to avoid it. Yeah, that latter would be best ...
Peter
