Dexa Clocks & Q5=1 Double Whammy

[Scroobius]

As Mani reported in his recent post comparing stock NOS1 versus NOS1 with Dexa clocks (at each end of the USB link) the Dexa's provide a substantial improvement. He found like I did that the sound becomes smoother less "pixelated". Smooth and coherent and fundamentally clearer sounding. This is the sound I have been listening to for some time now and I have to say it is really fundamental to how system is sounding now.

As mentioned in Mani's post I could not use Q5=1 at the time but now I can and I have been trying different settings. Just now I am using 6x24  1 1 1  & SFS 210. This is the best setting so far and without doubt improves the sound further. It is difficult to describe the improvement but the best I can come up with is that it removes an "unevenness" to the sound - the top end sounds better more coherent. Also it has significantly helped to detach the sound from the speakers - and is a real experience on good quality recordings.

The point is that both the Dexa's and Q5=1 provide a clear improvement and IMHO they do different things.

Of course this is not a complete test and I need to try Q5=1 and Dexa comparisons with both stock NOS1 and modified NOS1 - watch this space though as soon as Mani gets his Orelo's we shall be doing exactly that.

Cheers

Paul

[acg]

That is good news Paul.  I have noticed in a past week since 1.186 that USB cards make a significant difference, so I now don't doubt that the DEXA's do something more.

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of why, although I imagine you are reclining in bliss there at the moment and happy to stop searching for a while (I would not blame you).

Cheers,

Anthony

[Scroobius]

Whoops again!!!!     how easy it is to over look something. Last nights listening was (accidentally) done with the internal DVD player left connected (from an earlier driver install). In my system the DVD player when left connected is a BAD thing for sound quality. So now I have disconnected it and it has really changed things.

Q5=1 with larger latency settings just does not sound right. This is very unexpected given my experiences last night.

Elvis Costello (Wise Up Ghost) develops a very noticeable lisp with the high latency settings. Reducing SFS to 2 (from 210) and reducing Q1 to 14x1 (from 6x24) greatly improves things. The sound becomes crisp and precise and more dynamic sounding.

The difference is not subtle - it is like back in the day when the bigger latency settings just did not sound right in this system.

I will now have to re assess the difference between Q5=1 and other settings. Watch this space.

What is clear is that now even the smallest changes to settings make a big difference in sound quality.

Cheers

Paul

[PeterSt]

Paul,

If it was clear to myself about those higher latency settings as you call them, my sig would have changed. Anyway, I am back to my sig's current settings for the second day. Don't tell anyone.

Peter

[Scroobius]

Peter - no problem your secret is safe with me I will not mention it to anyone !

Paul

[Scroobius]

Hey Anthony,

although I imagine you are reclining in bliss

well yes with the music but I was also watching the ODI (on mute) as well - can't you guys let us win at least one match?

Cheers

Paul

[Nick]

Hi,

I had a long chat with Paul this afternoon and q5 = 1 settings came up. I thought i'd post my observations. The comments are relative to the schedule of usb clock, analogue and digital pcb changes to my NOS1 in place, plus a number of other clock and usb pcb psu changes implemented.

 So the sounds.

First V1.186 makes a large posertive impact with medium latency settings (q1=25, xq1=2, SFS=60 EDIT q5=5) that i was using before still providing the best overall sound quality. With v1.186 and these settings, there is an exceptional feeling of being in the same space as the music, with the feeling of musicians in the room performing.

I tried q5=1 EDIT again with XX V1.186 and with Peters signature settings and then  spent some time experimenting with EDIT SFS, NOS Buffer size and other settings. It was a mixed result for me. First the tone and solidity of reproduction was very good, a strongly 'valve' warmth feel to it. The highs are also strong but balanced and somehow have weight at the same time. The points that do not work so well here are that the sound stage becomes flatter, musicians that were in front and behind the plan of the speaker in the room now line up between the speakers. In addition dynamics are not so strong with transients and crescendos being more compressed, in this respect the medium latency setting sound more life like without being overblown.

Q5=1 is really interesting sound and could be a prefered setting for some types of music but just now the medium latency type settings provide the most realistic "in room" performance here.

Nick.

Edit Alain Peter have updated to make the compariosn an little clearer.

[AlainGr]

Hi Nick,

I read many people adding "with my equipment, my ears" when they express their impressions with settings or after applying a tweak...

Since you have modified many things (clocks for instance), I suppose that this explains the differences that you experience with XXHE settings ?

Regards,

Alain
Edit: Sorry if my question sounds "obvious"...

[PeterSt]

I suppose that this explains the differences that you experience with XXHE settings ?

... Or that Nick is talking about "Q5=1" only ? ...

[Nick]

Alain Peter hi,

To try to clarify better.

The listening impressions given are based on listening to XX V1.186 using "meduim latency" settings as listed (with Q5 = 5) vs Q5 = 1 settings which were based on your signature settings Peter.

Looking back this was not clear (now edited above).

The reason for listing the DAC changes is so that its clear the that listening system has USB clock and other changes as I you mentioned Peter that Q5=1 might be targeted to work in a similar fashion to USB clock improvements.

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Hey Nick, somehow you still manage to not mention Q3 and Q4. But ok, "copied from my sig" should tell it all - but still.
Peter

[Scroobius]

I have now had time to listen to different settings and I have to say my experience seems to be different to Nick's this time. Now I am listening without my internal DVD connected which affects things greatly.

First thing is that for me lower Q1 & SFS settings generally sound better to me. And the difference is consistent with what I have always found and that is the lower settings sound crisper tighter and better controlled. But it is the Q5 setting that is the most interesting.

First thing of note is that Q5=1 does not transform the sound quality as much now as it did when the internal DVD was presumably spewing noise all over the place.

But I have to say I do prefer the sound with Q5=1 to me the sound is crisper clearer and the bass is better defined. That is with 14x1 1 1 1 & SFS=1.

If I then change Q5=5 the sound is a little untidier and the bass is not quite as good. But we are not talking a massive difference overall.

I started with Nicks settings 24x2 1 1 5 & SFS=60 and to start with I thought I preferred them because the album I had on at that time the singing had less of a lisp. But then I put on another album and this time I preferred the singers voice with Q5=1 mmm not what I expected.

So somewhat inconclusive but I shall stay with 14x1 1 1 1 & SFS=1 at least for the time being. I have tried even lower SFS and Q1 settings but they did not seem to make a big difference.

So before I get completely nuts I shall stop playing with settings and listen to music which is sounding mighty fine now.

Cheers

Paul

[Nick]

Hey Paul,

Interesting, ill have another go with your settings and see what happens 

Best,

Nick.