So, finally such a shouting post from my hand, on a subject normally a few others shout as loud as they can. I tried to stay away from "all for the better !!", but it is obvious that I can't. And maybe it is not. At this moment I don't care much. But I do care about is :
How the f*ck can sound change so much (and in my view at this moment even for the better) just because of touching a few USB interfaces. Hey, I like to be recognized as the one now with the largest change ever. But *did* I achieve a largest change ever, or has Nick's or Paul's change been in the same leage ? It can't. It can't because I see no description which even closely resembles mine. In fact they go the complete different direction. And I STILL don't agree with what's described; did you read my "stupid delicacy? That.
Sure, we like a delicate sound opposed to "digital". We like it to be palpable. We are pussies.
So PeterSt says we must like roughness or something ?
No. But what PeterSt likes to achieve is that somehow - without listening to eachother's systems - we can find the direction to head for. And when someone is glad that he now "can play" 6dB more soft while the other is the most glad that he plays at 10dB more loud without notice, something HAS to be quite wrong were it about consensus.
Agreed ?
But this is how I found it important to let the few of you express about your changes compared to standard MoBo connections and how I possibly could make something of *that*. But all so much depends on how we express about it. Like my stupid technical lists may tell nothing to you and "better resolution" tells nothing to me. That is, until a few combined expressions start to match.
Can I use Coen's ?
And shall we now finally tell what actually changed in my system to let it sound like that ? then at least you understand why I asked you the question in the first place :
Because of my other little project (one-clock) I via-via-via found that this other (untweaked) USB3 board did not want to work without 5V connected. Stupid little thing.
So for startes, that's the change. Or at least it seems a major one; I have one card perfectly working without the 5V where I noticed no difference (and didn't pay attention) and I have this other needing the 5V and I dropped on all floors from all chairs (and didn't like to pay attention BUT tried it explicitly because ...);
By cheer accident - and because of this other one-clock little project - I found that ONLY after the install of the formal NEC drivers because it didn't want to work - ... that right after the driver install there was a "power surge" balloon in the right corner. This happened with and without NOS1 connected, and I couln't understand. Still not BTW. Without the attempt to install this driver I would never have seen it, but while the PC recognized it happily without complaints, no NOS1 wanted to connect to it. And no way I thought that this card suddenly would need the 5V because I think I saw nobody write about any such cards needing it. And my own other of course does not. Only Mr. Pang's and that is dedicated to drive the oscillator. Maybe.
So this is how I tried to pose the question - actually to find out about similar changes to the sound, hoping to proove that all is about this 5V and nothing about any Paul Pang.
At least - and in this stage - we must seriously think about (and of course I am repeating myself for the xth time) WHAT actually implies the differences. A better clock in general, a more stable one etc. which needs so much reasoning, many more options, or the sheer randomness of injected noise, or removed noise if you want.
So, what I get from Paul's (and in the end Nick's) description is at least similat to what I perceive after inserting such a 5V fed card. So allow me, I for now just dedicate it to the 5V thing (don't know what it will lead to). Thus, by replacing *that* with something else like Dexa, the roughness disappears and all becomes a perceived silky etc. Too bad that this silky can be too much of it in my view and that more bass never has been good in my view, but what it is about is the similar description which I can easily call roughness (note : all for the better because *here* it seems to express as better separation on whatever micro level).
So believe it or not, I agree with Paul's description; happens the same here, though not with a Pang card. 5V yes.
This is how we need to look at Coen's description(s) because they far more resemble what I am saying. This is not all that easy to see, but here it is :
With the standard pp card I posted before that I felt it was delicate and natural sounding, but with less drive, less highs and especially less bass.
That is compared to my standard oem usb3 pcie card (earlier version of the NEC chip with onboard switching regulators for the chip and 5V). Reversely this sounds more loose and melodious, together with more realistic highs and dynamics.
Aha ! So Coen too manged to get hold of a card which needs 5V. Well, that is what I like to take from this quote (Coen ?).
Might it help, my card is a Silverstone - can look at the Chip type when needed.
Further down the line I see Coen talk about Drive which was never in my mind, but which I made up yesterday and I never looked in the forum again. Coincidence ?
Actually this is to be it for now. I know, my way long story may look like not much being to the point, but only when we start to recognize eachother's descriptions and hunches and environment (changes !) we might get to something final. For me Coen achieves the similar sound and liking of the various aspects as I do. This tells nothing, but of course I regard it important when it resembles my thang. Paul's and Nick's go the exact other direction. Can be as good, but won't sound like I like it. Important ? h*ll yes, because we like to achieve reality. And like I was happy two days ago, and seem to be more happy todat with a 180 degree different sound, what IS the sound to be ?
And we try this through written words ? Quite a task.
May it help, this is now my sound by more normal wording :
Any top layer - no matter silky and refined, totally gone. But I don't know and knew what to do with it anyway, because it could only disturb because too profound (masks reality of cymbals).
Power power power. Yes, drive. But also into the rythm (ok, must try Grace Jones now). Brought forward through detail in all areas - hard to define. I can imagine to find new washboards in upcoming albums to play, while no washboard has been in there previously. That kind of thing.
What puzzles and intrigues is why (read how) it is possible that the detail/separation (estimated at maybe 50ms of On/Off separation) and which is the most sharply boundaried, does not show any single harshness at all. This, as the lead in to rattling cymbals where no rattling cymbal has gone before (blame Spock). This, along with the higher pitched more bell like coming from it, generally dedicated as "more music". So that area (think 1000 - 2000Hz) has become super profound, is super dangerous in the mean time, but doesn't disturb at all.
Yes, no bass either. But still still there. It did not bother me by even one second; only the puzzling about how they could have gond did.
This is a dangerous one for anyone judging "wrong ! because no bass !". I can very well be wrong, but focus on the better coherence and how the overwhelming of the real music could be for the better after all;
I speak often about "so normal". In this case it suddenly was "so normal" that this profound bass was not there (but mind my speakers). That bass has been so mighty interesting, plays main melodies etc., but I only now wonder how normal that is.
With the latter in mind : all is the opposite of "thin". Strangely though, this emerges by the removing of the silkyness as I think a first, to next being filled out again by the roughness which is round (and no single way I can perceive it as distortion).
The whole top layer (but think above 1000Hz) has become a live concert instead of pussy audio homo desires. Yes, strange wording, maybe not meant to say what it looks like, but the opposite of live music that would be. Also (but I am trying to dig that out afterwards) : smashing cymbals like never before, without the nasty top end of them being able to hurt.
Ok, too long again. But thinking about electrical merit (just hunches) :
Earlier, noise implies false HF to be there and it expresses (or can do that) as a HF top layer which though silky does not match the underlaying implied (!) foundation. In the mean time this same noise is actually everywhere, and fills "separation gaps" unauthorized.
Thinking about more high (volume) peaks at this now not anynore flattened "mid" (??) frequencies, this is THUS about flatting not happening anymore just the same. So, not only gaps re-emerging, but also flattening less happening. I *think* that both should lead to LESS noise (not more, which as you know is so often my idea about changes).
How ?
Maybe others can get wild here. The NOS1 does not require "power" as such. Still, maybe that 5V supply provies more of it. Oh hey, but what about the SNR in there ? Say more signal same noise ? So, better signal ? If so, where is that utilized ? Fewer USB retransmissions (with following goodies) ?
Guys ... IF it is correct that this is for the better ! So I am posing that, but I know I can't do that in a few hours. But what I try to do is find the WHY of the changes and it would be so much comfortable when we'd knew for a fact that the changes are for the better to begin with.
Blahblahblahblah. But trying.
Peter (sorry for undoubtedly countless typos)
