Clairixa USB

[christoffe]

Bl**dy hell,

the cable opened up dramatically after 4 to six hours.
Very “clean” sound of the wind instruments and the timbre of all instruments and voices in my system is amazing. The depth of the soundstage improved a lot.

The best USB cable in my system ever.

Joachim

[PeterSt]

Yes, well, ... I don't even know whether I said it already, but I had the idea myself that something changed after 2 hours or so. But I always find it hard to "dedicate" better sound to breaking in, especially when it seems to go in a sudden fashion.
And breaking- or burning-in of such a cable ... if it is so it is so. But I remain to think it is a strange phenomenon. So benefit of the doubt ...

Thank you Joachim,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Gosh can I expect this sound to get better!!!!

Super Robert ! and especially since you're not a NOS1(a) owner.

Best regards,
Peter

[listening]

I ordered a Clairixa cable made of one of remaining cable pieces and got not less than I expected - a reference cable! After readjusting all parameters of the USB interfaces I could use the SQ parameters for he first time as written in my forum profile without clicks. Apparently transmission errors are gone  and another curtain is drawn from the music! There is a rock stable positioning of the instruments, a lot of details, all around coherency and last but not least the bass SQ. Well done Peter!

Georg

[Arjan]

Hi,
I use the clairixa for >200 hrs and I love it. It needs some first hours to open up. But after the first hours bass and upper bass was still a bit to much. But now after this number of hours also the bass is beautiful. It replaced my audioquest coffee which sounded harsh, edgy and noisy compared to the clairixa.
What other usb cables are replaced by the clairixa, I mean expensive cables?
regards, Arjan

[Robert]

I didn't find the bass too much. But there is certainly more bass information. I was tempted to buy the Lightspeed but struggled with the cost. The Clairixa seemed much better value for money judging by reports. I wanted to upgrade the USB cable as by all accounts it was worthwhile.
Thanks to Peter now he can get on with updating XXhighend.

[boleary]

Well, since last Wednesday,  I let the Clairixa burn in for two and a half days and spent at least five hours on Friday listening to the system without any A-B-ing. The sound was fantastic, though different from what I've become accustomed to. Late Saturday, after again spending several hours listening, it seemed that i'd never heard the various drum solo's on the Bassface Swing Trio's Gerschwin album sound so real and energized.  However female vocals (Eva Cassidy, Claire Martin, Alanis Morrissette-accoustic Jagged Little Pill, Ana Caram) didn't sound quite as natural and textured: the timbre seemed a bit too energized, tending toward a less nuanced or textured or less analogue sound. I adjusted settings and found that with Peter's recommended NOS1a settings, 16x oversampling ( I usually only do 8x) and the device driver buffer set to 8ms the sound became more like the sound I get from my YFS V4 data only cable. However it wasn't until yesterday when I finally put the YFS cable back into the system that it became clear that the active 5v power leg of the Clairixa adds a level of noise that on the one hand "energizes" the sound, but on the other hand colors the sound in a way that leaves vocals less satisfying because they sound less natural.  With the YFS V4 cable the magic of a live vocal performance returned.

So I then applied the tape Peter supplied with the second round of Clairixa cables to the power leg of the Clairixa. Immediately the noise that had bothered before disappeared; however, the sound wasn't as spacious as the YFS cable and it seems, though I don't really have any idea if its true, but it seems to me that the spaciousness of the sound is related to the delicacy and naturalness of the timbre of vocals. The two seem to go hand in hand on my system. I didn't leave the Clairixa (with tape) in for too long so it may be that the sound will open up more with a few more hours of use.

A few conclusions: It pains me a bit being a contrarian. I would much rather be "in line" with the experience of others but that's just not the case here with the Clairixa. The energy and clarity of the Clairixa just sounds a bit "unnatural." One cannot discount the possibility that I have become addicted to a sound that is not quite right and the Clairixa is "upsetting" that, but, if that's the case, oh well.  I personally don't think so but who knows. Equally concerning to me is the fact that quite a few forum members here listened to the YFS Reference cable and have rejected it as sounding not right. Being the only one here, as far as I know, having listened to the YFS V4, rather than the Reference version, makes me wonder if the V4 isn't actually better sounding that the Reference? I was really hoping I'd get a turn with the YFS Reference cable when it returned to the US but I guess that's not to be, as I've not gotten any response to my last query about it.

Anyway for me the YFS cable sounds "truer," without any lack in detail or rolling off of the higher frequencies. Bass is taught and textured and vocals are just magical. The last thing I'll say about the difference is this: with the Clairixa, I had some trouble getting the volume "just right." One "Alt X" up and it was a tad too loud, "Alt X" down and it was a tad too soft. With the V4 I simply have a range of undistorted,  pleasurable levels of loudness. I hope that makes sense.

Lastly, I want to say that I am very glad to have gone through this experience. It has been totally worth it to once again assess the overall sound of my system!

Brian

 

[PeterSt]

Hi there Brian - super report ... thank you for that !

Now let me (try to) tell you something that actually has been told already ... new filters. Not to explicitly counteract on what you perceive, but because I can just "hear" what you ran into now. And remember, some of us have the finest ears and I regard you to be amongst those. Also, I think, and have always thought, that you focus on the hardest part of "music" as such - women vocals.

Now, while I actually already planned to tell the exact same as I am going to do right now, it is only the context which changed (to me) - your report. Here goes :

For two or three weeks now, I am using the latest incarnation of (one of the) new filters I have been creating;
Three days agso I was as far as thinking : hey, strange actually, but in all this time I never ever ran into *anything* that did not sound right or harsh or whatever. This, while when playing random music (meaning not for explicit testing this time) will always let me run into something of which I think "maybe later, but not yet today". Even on a daily basis, while now it did not happen in them 2-3 weeks (which for me implies something like 80 hours of playing).

Then I was thinking ... is it the Clairixa or is it the new filter ?
Well, it must be the combination, but it has to be the filter really.

After this thinking 3 days ago, I started to watch for what it actually can be that does not "hurt" anywhere any more. Could be complicated, but one of the things I noticed since, was this :

When you'd play modern recordings for a longer time it now starts to be noticable that some of the older, but from certain era, sound rolled off. Yes. But where ? hey, in the lower highs end or something. Say maybe 4-5KHz. Could be the hit on a snare drum (with snare On). I noticed this with Deep Purple in Rock, which never sounded rolled off to me (say like Machine Head does). But now the strange thing : nothing of the sort for the highest highs !
So see, officially this does not fit, were it about a high frequency distortion, but ... but ...
(note in between : I hardly play those Deep Purple albums because ... they distort)

It is very clear to me that the Clairixa adds spades of "high frequency". You can hear it in everything, especially the (now more) older recordings. 60's and such. Also, there is nothing wrong with this if you allow yourself to ditch an album here and there because it's too much of it. On thing : that should not be albums which were OK before, and those I never ran into anyway (with Clairixa).
But something of an other way round happens ...

The highest frequencies we tend to hear are not those of very high pitched (sine) flutes. So no, we must think about some way lower frequency like maybe 1000Hz or even lower but the sound implied being fairly square (hardly any sound is pure sine). Like a snare drum with its snare activated. Or, a woman voice. Just low key, but because of the nature of such a voice, fairly square and that ending up in high frequencies which disturb when not right.
But how ? well, because those frequencies are not 100% in the first place. That's what happens when you give priority to the time domain (zero ringing); now the frequency domain is not the best and this plainly means distortion.

Now pass on that distortion better just because a stupid USB cable apparently can do that. Well, all it needs is focusing on those sounds hence for example woman voices and you will easily hear it.
Uhm, I do. But I learned not to play the Griffin's and all. "Just don't sound right".

What the new filters do is making the audible range (as how I see that !) "undistorted" and which would be applicable to the 12KHz-16KHz range, and roll off the frequencies where this is not possible (because otherwise ringing occurs) and this is at 16KHz and above.
... And if you then apply Clairixa, all is in super balance - over here at least.
And next it occurs to you, without paying attention to it, that you never shut off any album or track in even 2-3 weeks of time.

Also, if you combine this (filter) with the unpowered Clairixa, it immediately becomes apparent that now you lost high frequency (stuffed ears situation).

To see what I mean you could try the 768 Custom filter that comes along with 1.186-i. Notice though that this one was not really optimized as how they are now for the next version, plus I am using a very different filter myself (doing way "more" than that 768 filter does). But you might be able to see in what direction it goes and I am fairly 100% sure you will hear the distortion after a couple of hours playing with it, going back to normall Arc Prediction. And how does normal Arc Prediction express ? way more detail if you play the "wrong" tracks. But play the right ones (could be Cassidy) you'll hear the distortion.
Notice that because of the detail I, at some stage, went back to normal Arc Prediction (say 6 months ago). But if I'd use the Clairixa today *and* normal Arc Prediction it would be too much (distortion) for me. So Clairixa really adds more highs (way more) but actually all it does it let pass on more with which it is fed. And with Arc Prediction you can hear that this is not correct.

But of course this is how I said in this topic somewhere that Clairixa gave me the reason (opportunity) to proceed with the filters, which I actually gave up upon.
Thus careful, you may perceive what I just described for direction of the filter you have ... and if it's good it's good ... but I really use something else. Hopefully out soon now !

Best regards,
Peter

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

Reading Brian's report, I wonder if beyond a certain point, what is "too much" with a component (or an accessory) will be tamed or emphasized with other components (and accessories)... It seems logical to me to assess that some cables (or components) may "filter" in a way or another and that determines the different results that each of us hear...

I know I am writing the "obvious" but just to be sure: are you saying that Arc Prediction may not be the best when you compare it with the other filters you have worked on with 1.186i and the next version ?

Thanks.

Alain

[PeterSt]

Hey Alain,

I, personally, don't see much wrong with your asessments. But still it is not easu to see through all of it (again, as how I see it);

Reading Brian's report, I wonder if beyond a certain point, what is "too much" with a component (or an accessory) will be tamed or emphasized with other components (and accessories)...

First off, I don't think that anything can be "too much" as such. However, the "emphasizing" is key here.
So for example, if we use a filter which in the end is a more or less distorting filter, we can't really say we "emphasize" it when we only make better audible what the music file tells us to hear. I mean, that would only happen when we apply an amplifier to that part of the frequency spectrum. So it's a bit the other way around (as usual, from my sprouting) :
If we apply something which passes on better what's in there (the music file) but next what's made of it (via the filtering) isn't the very best, then possibly we better had not applied that whatever it is (Clairixa in this case).

It seems logical to me to assess that some cables (or components) may "filter" in a way or another

So yes. But now one thing which has been strategy forever : what I (always and ever) do is filter as few as possible and thus pass on as much as possible. Best example could be the Blaxius interlink, which was made to pass on 5-6GHz of frequency. So only beyond that it filters (if all is right). A strange way to approach audio ...

This is especially strange if we see that the digital filtering - and for those with NOS1(a) this is without any analog filters either - implies at least high frequency sh*t beyond 768KHz ... and we now do all our best to pass that on. So notice - this is what it comes down to, really.

This was just an example, and it should be a harmless one (the level of that HF is way down). But so many more things can be "wrong". Fact for my own life is : all what's eliminated for filtering in the general sense (like cables can), works out for the better. And where not, something else must be solved. That is, this is my strategy and this always worked.
Do notice once again that any explicit filtering means, as far as my ears can perceive those, exactly 100% never worked out. Thus, anything (really anything that I ran into) that filtered the highs, may have solved e.g. harshness, but it never lead to anything close to satisfaction. It is what you're used to perhaps, but once my cymbals sound fairly the same as the real drum kit, I can't listen to muffled ones later. But if they sound sharp and such because of the high output, I must find the source of that sharpness. And thus don't solve it with filtering the HF.

Point in this case is : when the digital filtering is not optimal, it *creates* HF. But this is false !! So any distorting sine is not a sine but more square, and anything "square" implies unavoidavle higher frequencies to represent it. And the danger : this sounds more fresh. But it *is* distortion.

So other way around again : If I first use filtering cables (interlink is the best example again) I won't even hear the distortion the filter CRE-ATES. And back to today's base : if I eliminate some of that analogue filtering, I can suddenly hear it (you too) and now we must work on that digital filter.

are you saying that Arc Prediction may not be the best

So yes. Notice though that during the process my highest frequency output may have been risen with 12dB or whatever. Really very much !
This is the result of many progress over the years but meanwhile it is way more difficult to let sustain those highs in good fashion. I mean, 12 dB louder makes it 12dB better audible what's wrong in there.

To be clear : Arc Prediction serves the time domain for 100%. This means no ringing at all. But correct it never is. It implies fairly high THD in the higher frequencies.
THD can be made quite close to 100% correct - as far as the hardware (equipment like amp and DAC) allows. But close to 100% correct means close to infinite ringing (really so).
So the trick is to find the optimum, and the new filters do that. At least as how I could make it today; still no ringing, but - and this is the fun - again higher output of the higher frequencies (say between 12KHz 16KHz) and with less distortion. Both go together anyway and all what I should be saying is : if someone thinks that Clairixa might exhibit too HF output and therefore will not like it, then I have even more output there and it only got *better*.

This is all very very fragile and it is also so that all goes together. The better one part gets, the more audible will the not-so-right part become. And so for me all is one large iteration, forever as it seems. And the conclusion is seriously one only : the better it becomes the more high (level) the HF output *has* become (automatically). This should tell that for any situation which incurs for the other way around, something else is not at its best yet. Just find it ... (ahum).

Peter

[boleary]

Thanks Peter. Probably won't be till the weekend untill I get time to listen to the Clairixa (no tape) with the 768 filter. Hopefully the new version of XXhighend will be out before then. 

Brian

[sondale]

 Diary of a Break-In

Please note that the following relates to using TWO USB cables to run my iFi iDAC and iDSD Micro; at the start point I had not removed services nor used MinimizeOS.

Day 1 - the cables arrive and both are put into the system replacing the iFi supplied cables. Initial thoughts were nothing much changed, slightly thicker sound in the mid, perhaps a touch more detail at the top and possibly a little more bass. I ran this for a couple of hours only.

Day 2 - Dynamics have improved, for instance on Michael Hedges 'Aerial Boundaries' when he plucks the strings or raps the guitar body the effect is visceral, it reminds me of my best vinyl setup. Bass is extended but tight, top end is nicely detailed. Played Piano, Orchestral, Jazz - all sounding better than yesterday.

Day 3 - I decided to set Time Performance Index to Optimal, rebooted, all seemed OK for a few minutes and then I noticed some low level ticking noises and distortion. I checked the connections, rebooted the pc, no change. So I reset TPI, rebooted, played the same music - the low-level ticking is still present as is the distortion. I went from x16 upsampling back down to x1, i.e. Redbook, and the ticking/distortion went away. I know that in my days running cMP2 I always ended up running without any upsampling. NOW the imaging is all over the place, front to back is reduced, central images are a little indistinct sounding almost out of phase. After a while of head scratching I took the cables out of the system and watched the TV for the rest of the evening. At midnight I relented, put the cables back in, set the pc to repeatedly play a Telarc sampler and left it to run overnight.

Day 4. What an improvement, sounding better in all ways, imaging, detail, bass. Played some choral works - groups of voices and individual voices are easier to hear and locate.

Day 5. Only manages to listen to some Arvo Part - quietly - again good imaging, detail, vocals.

Day 6. Trying to sort out a neighbour's subwoofer.

Day 7. Oh dear - back to the thick voices - just listening to Suzanne Vega - Tom's Diner - sounds a little chesty as if she is getting a cold. I have just read 'boleary's' post and I can relate to most of his findings (at least today!). OK today may be because it is a weekday when the mains is at its worst but so was day 2.

What is that Chinese curse? 'May you live in interesting times'.

The iFi dac is normally powered by the iUSB, but just for the sake of identifying any other problems I will run it battery only which removes one of the new cables.

[PeterSt]

Wow Alan ...

Question first : Did you get rid of that ticking at normal upsampling rates ? You don't mention it. But it seems that from there (this Time Performance Index thing) did something and wasn't recoverd from. Am I correct ?

Let me know ... (and maybe start a new topic about it ?)
Peter

[PeterSt]

Because I had to put it up soon anyway ...

Filtering

Peter

[sondale]

Peter,

Yes the ticking went away after I took out the resampling of x16; however thinking about it now I am going to try values from x1 to x16.

I will leave the two USB cables as they are, i.e. change nothing else.

I will be opening a few more support threads so I will post findings in that section.

Alan