NOS1 Upgrade contains ...

[brunok]

Hmmm, how to ask a question without (necessarily) expecting a reply?!  I know, a wish list.  It sure would be nice (timely?) to have up to 8 channels available for the NOS1a (daughtercard?).

Drats, I just threw out those big cardboard boxes saying to myself, "what's the likelihood of me sending this back to Peter".  Figures!   ...Let me know if/when you have a separate plan for the NOS1a upgrade for North America.  Perhaps swapping to a prebuilt NOS1a might work, etc.?

TNX

[PeterSt]

Hey there Bruno,

Perhaps swapping to a prebuilt NOS1a might work, etc.?

For now outside your other question ... why exactly would you need that ? Or is it about the box ? (ehm, LOL ?)

Regards,
Peter

[bertlwolf]

Hi Peter, please put me on your upgrade list

Wolfgang

[PeterSt]

Dear Wolfgang,

Apparently this upgrade makes people post for the first time !
I can say "a warm welcome" to you of course, but you already were for a longer time.

#22 on the list and thanks !
Kind regards,
Peter

[esimms86]

Peter, you never fail to surprise me! Perhaps this means that I may have to consider purchasing a new NOS1a some time in the next year. I wonder what a new one will cost given that building a new one will not entail retooling one that already exists.

And then there are, of course, questions like what would be the benefit of an XXHE PC if the PC doesn't matter, and what will be the benefit of XXHE vs. other music software if XXHE tweaks don't matter. Would a low powered PC or Mac suffice if the PC truly doesn't matter? Would software like Amarra or j river work for those of us interested in more spouse friendly options(keeping in mind that Amarra has built in room correction software)?

With FPGA being the new audio software favorite, are we looking at a DAC without a DAC chip like the new PS Audio DAC or does the 1a still use the chip in the NOS1(e.g., the Auralic Vega uses FPGA in association with its DAC chip - and here is where all comparisons are meant to end).  Hmmm.

Esau

[esimms86]

Just read the posts on jitter: the power of the PC DOES matter. My bad.

Esau

[PeterSt]

Hey there Esau,

Just read the posts on jitter: the power of the PC DOES matter.

Then I must have written something strange because it does not matter (that I can see).

Regards,
Peter

[manisandher]

I think Esau is talking about the CPU and the PC's general performance, and not the PC's power supply. The PC's speed still matters from a usability perspective.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Grrr ...
I am sure he does.

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

Once my surprise has gotten to a level I can manage (...), there are still some questions for me to be answered.

You mentionned that as a hobby, most tweaks would not work anymore and in a sense, this is a dream come true for those who prefer a "plug it and forget it". In a way, for a guy like me, there are some aspects of this that I could not easily grasp.

Add to this that SQ will increase again and you will not only make my day, but my months, my years... And my ears

But some notions have escaped me (this is an understatement) in the process. I have thought that noise (born from all situations that occur inside a PC) was taking any path that would be easy for it to take. So, since the PC is connected to the NOS1 with a USB cable, the data line would already be carrying noise that has nothing to do with the signal itself. Even if someone was using an optical device (like Adnaco), the noise "within" the signal would also go to the dac no ?

Following this logic (probably from my confused understanding), it made sense to reduce all that could generate this noise in a PC (Minimize OS, stop many services, underclock the CPU, play unattended, avoid networking, even use a linear PSU, etc...).

If I recall, there is inherent noise related to USB protocol and if there is also noise with the signal path, how does your modifications be stopping this from altering the dac ?

I could of course tell myself that even if I don't understand, the results will be there, but it would help me if I just could eliminate from my mind a part of these questions that have been there for years. Or at least, I will stop having erroneous perceptions about the noise running everywhere, taking any path it can...

Regards,

Alain

[PeterSt]

So Alain, you have been thinking eh ?
Very nice/good questions but answer will take longer and that needs to be later. So I'll be back ...

TII

[manisandher]

Hey Alain, for what it's worth, here's my analogy for what is going on...

Consider that I have an ultra-sensitive measuring instrument (interferometer, or whatever) placed on a suspended wooden floor [usb link]. I notice there is too much vibration [usb noise] coming through the wooden floors [usb link]. So, I spend a fortune on isolation stands [usb filters, etc]. [Edit: I spend a fortune trying different floors (USB cables).] I also minimize all the vibrations by re-routing all the traffic outside [minimize PC noise]. But only then a genius [Peter] comes and tells me to place the instrument onto a wall bracket [total isolation]. Let the floor vibrate as much as it wants and let the traffic flow - it won't affect, it can't affect my instrument anymore.

OK, not a great analogy. But I hope you know what I mean.

Mani.

[AlainGr]

Hi Mani,

I think I understand And there the dreaded "But ?" intervenes
Of course, the better I manage to isolate from the vibrations, the better the results. I could even put my device in another room where the vibrations will be attenuated, but vibrations are from everywhere, even if they don't come directly from the speakers ?

We tend to think (correctly) that vibrations will come from our speakers and from what I have read there will be a lot of them coming from the marvelous pair of speakers you (I hope soon) will receive, but... There are still other vibrations that will affect the wall, the floor (inaudible, but measurable) and all that sits or is ankored somewhere.

The analogy with electricity could be that though the work done to eliminate as much vibrations as possible, there will still be some left. I know we know that it will be reduced to a point not attained up to now, but still there is potential ?

Let's say that I have a capacitor that is "singing" (I am really not sure of this example) or there is a high frequency in the AC because of a switching power supply... ?

In the PC, a measuring device would go crazy (I guess), so since electricity is fluctuating due to different forms of current draws (that we have been fighting against for years now), how does this translate in the link between our two devices ? This link is a path and what we call the "signal" and what could be called the "efforts" done by all the components in the PC to generate, process and send this signal...

English is not my first language, so sorry if I sound strange with my questions...

Ultimately there is one thing I believe. We will hear the results of Peter's hard work and this is high "gastronomy"

I just hope that my NOS1 will not get sick in the transit

Regards,

Alain

Edit: If I am right, the best way to do things (apart from what this will bring) is to "eliminate" the noise at the source... Well, this is how I understood what needs to be done in hi-fi... At other times, the turntable was the "source", but now with all this loudness war (compression, clipping), we know that the studio manipulation is at the "source"... So if the source is bad, the rest will suffer to a certain level...

Maybe I lack many details in my questions and attempts to answer them (in my mind), but since "the results will be the one from the weakest link" and the PC would be that weakest link (as it probably always have been)...

So my take would be "Well, if I persist in using Minimize OS, go unattended, use the non persistent network only for loading music, it should not be harmful no ?"...

Lots of questions I suppose some tweaks will not be effective anymore, but maybe a few left will still be in order ?

[manisandher]

I think ultimately Peter has shifted his approach from one of manipulating the USB noise inevitably getting into the DAC (via all the XX dials and settings) to one of making the DAC totally immune to this noise (without affecting the sound). The noise is still there. But now it just doesn't matter, even if there is more actually a lot more noise. The DAC remains totally immune.

From a psychological perspective it'll probably take a few of us (including me) a while to accept that the computer no longer makes a difference. But I'm all for it, as it opens the way to do some interesting (potentially CPU-intensive) stuff in software before sending to the DAC.

Mani.

[manisandher]

But I'm all for it, as it opens the way to do some interesting (potentially CPU-intensive) stuff in software before sending to the DAC.

I'm talking about things like digital crossovers and DSP built into XX. This would potentially take some serious CPU power if done in real time.

Ultimately, what I like about this approach (i.e. making DAC immune to noise, vs. reducing and/or filtering the noise) is that it allows the PC to be a PC - the wonderful, flexible machine that it is - rather than a high-end transport.

Mani.