B'ASS First Review HERE AT LAST!!!

[acg]

My B'ass G3 arrived today.  I have really missed my dac since it has been away and tonight I unpacked it and put on the wonderful adagio of Bruckners 8th Symphony with Sir Simon Rattle and the AWO.

Oh my.


My, oh my.


That was 27 minutes of pure pleasure.  Thank-you Peter. 

[Scroobius]

Peter posted way way back that NOS1 with Orelo's have minimal room effects (IIRC). I had trouble believing that then but when I visited Peter's house before purchasing my Orelino's Peters room certainly did not exhibit any of the room effects that bedevil most systems (specifically bass reinforcements and suck outs  due to standing waves). That is all except for one tiny corner at the back of the room (the "Naughty" corner just next to the naughty step ha ha).

So when I got my Orelino's setup in my rather difficult room (SQ wise that is) it was not a big surprise that there were big room effects. Not withstanding that however the system sounded great, really great. So it seemed that room effects were here to stay in this room.

Well that is what I thought - but since getting my DAC back upgraded to G3 status not only has the sound quality REALLY improved but the room effects seem to be much less. In other words the reinforcement and cancellation problem is much less than it was. This is something that Peter may not appreciate because in his room it was never a problem anyway.

The difference here is really noticeable I am currently sitting in what was a previous NO NO for sound quality because there used to be a big bass reinforcement just here on the settee (not my normal listening position it has to be said). Now it just sounds great and a similar balance to the sound as everywhere else in the room.

It is so noticeable that even listening to the speakers from behind in the conservatory is really quite OK now whereas previously it was ARRGGHH bad.

So why is this?  well Peter states (again IIRC) that what comes out of the Orelino's with NOS1 driving them is much more phase coherent (or "Phasure") than in other systems that have had phase coherence smashed up by IIR filtering and "other misdemeanors" as Ian Dury would have said. So what has improved with G3 to improve phase coherence (if indeed I am right and that is what has happened)?

Is it the better output stage of NOS1 now responsible for better phase coherence? or maybe it is that "secret" upgrade. Who knows but my system is much better behaved in this room now - much better. Or that is how it seems to my ears.

I would be interested in your views Peter :-)

Cheers

Paul

[acg]

Hi Paul,

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room.  They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room. There must be another explanation for what you hear other than "no standing waves" because they are a function of the room, not the speaker, and their location below 200hz - 300Hz is identical regardless of where in the room the speakers are placed or even what speakers are used.

Although I could swear Johhny Cash was actually singing in my loft last night, the sound was that good even downstairs!

Cheers,

Anthony

[pedal]

Well, there is a "chain reaction" going on here.
Ok, a room might be cursed with its standing waves (room nodes) which are easy to measure and to explain. But we might perceive them differently than we measure them.
I have several times experienced that upgrading my poweramps, tidied up my deep bass, subjectively as if room nodes were less noticeable. The same has happened with improved source components, and even cable changes.

There is an accumulative effect in a sound system. A small distortion reduction in the front end, might be perceived as a bigger improvements after passing through remaining chain (cables, amps, speakers and room).

[PeterSt]

Well that is what I thought - but since getting my DAC back upgraded to G3 status not only has the sound quality REALLY improved but the room effects seem to be much less. In other words the reinforcement and cancellation problem is much less than it was. This is something that Peter may not appreciate because in his room it was never a problem anyway.

Hey Paul,

Still I had that one corner to check for, which btw only exhibited this "headphone" idea which actually was mere a gag than a problem (might one be sent to the corner ). Besides, as you will recall, this is with your nose right onto the corner and 5 cm away it already did not work. So there was merely reflections going on.
In this corner, today, nothing is happening any more. So *now* I have nothing left to check.

More in a next post ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room.  They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room.

Unless your nick is PeterSt ... then suddenly other things are going on ...
haha

Anthony, it may be just before your times on this forum, but others may recall that this is even an explicit measure for me. And I mean : explicit. So if (today) I notice even the slightest spur of standing wave (or dip) then it is by guarantee that I judge the whetever change to be wrong without further listening. And it is such an easy and comfortable means. Of course, one must first be in the stage of gotten rid of them (like Paul now, as it seems) - at least to some degree so you can have the reference.

Notice that the standing waves can occur in any frequency and they can be incurred for by any means which is detrimental to sound to begin with. Thus, "wrong" DAC and standing waves are your share; wrong filtering in-DAC (or by software) and it happens (ringing !), wrong ampifier - it happens (impedance !), wrong speakers (distortion) - it happens.

It is not so difficult to understand what happens if you only have some belief in the only one on the globe spouting such things (who is me), who comes up with a theory like this (theory, because a bit hard to measure) :

First you must envision sound waves in the 2D plane. Pick one direction the waves travel, like towards you. This of course with the notice that soundwaves travel in the 3D space but with 3D we can not envision a thing (too complicated). Thus, what I am saying is imaginable for 2D but for 3D it will work out just the same (OK, worse).

Say that a wave is put out jagged :

Thus, the intended shape is the dashed line, but from distortions the jagged line is the result.
Obviously it is so that any kind of distortion (source) can cause the original sine to be jagged (fed with noise).
On a side note : no nice sine ever exists in practice as all is mixed with 100s of different frequencies at any time, but do notice that each frequency originally always is a sine (and a nicely shaped sine if possible). This is how we can only envision things from a theoretical base (and the theory is mine).

Now let's see what could happen in air (still 2D) when two jagged waveforms travel. Try to see that the speaker (one only) is at the bottom of this picture :

(courtesy of I can't read which stock photo site)

The intended waves you can see in the middle of what we call distortion escursions (the jaggies go to the sides in this picture).
Also try to envision that these are not the exact same frequencies and the left hand one goes a bit faster then the right hand one. They touch at the jagged ends ...
Now the sound buzzes.

Keep in mind that frequencies of course touch all over, but it is about what we add to it with our electronics (and also speaker mechanics). Thus, no matter a violin may show quite square waves (still comprising of sines because that is how a square is build up), it is not really the idea that we make it more sharp than original. But maybe compare with a bag pipe which intends to buzz and is therefore a very difficult instrument because any over-buzz (the distortion we add) and it screams in your ears with a main characteristic that it is uneven (the buzzing resonates (oscillates)).

So, the intended wave is the middle part you can see, without the jaggies. Easy to see how it has become way more difficult for the two waves to interact. When the jaggies wouldn't be there, there's just 4 times the space to move without touching.

The jaggies are my over-emphasis of something which normally wobbles a bit. Thus, on the intended wave a small wobble modulates. This is already caused by jitter. And, especially the lower frequencies suffer first. Why ? well, because any even longer term jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space.
Two 50Hz frequencies ? Yes, if we count in the reflections ... (and what about left/right speaker, of course).

And now you see we are getting somewhere, because the room modes/nodes are about that in the first place (so Anthony, of course !). However, still the effect applies of two frequencies (or 100s of them) not being able to touch so easily when they are more lean. Thinner. Without distortion ...

Two waves will emphasize each other with a factor of two when they exactly meet. This is precise aiming when the wave is infinitely thin. Btw, notice that the imagining becomes quite hard now because we should be talking/thinking in the longitudinal direction where the waves exactly meet - say at the head of them. Still it applies, and the thicker that "rope" the easier the ends connect (and emphasize/add).
Important : in practice it does not work like this "connecting" at all, because it is about how the top (peak) and bottom side (dip) of two waves add (fall exactly over each other) or cancel (phase is 180 degrees different) and now you need to think a little bit 3D to see how waves may pass eachother when thin, because they must meet in the left/right plane at this small connection point.
(but it is on all directions because ... 3D)

So ... all theory only because in 3D all is 100 times more complex (and more crucial with that !) and nothing is to envision in 3D.
Fact is that once upon some time my room was stacked with PEQ's to get rid of standing waves which were everywhere. Today I indeed challenge people who listen in my room to find even one, no matter where and no matter the "yea, well, that corner is obvious !". So no, nothing of the kind, no-where.
And this indeed is with unheard bass powers and loudness (I easily play over 100dBSPL and still nothing goes wrong in any position in the room).
Remember me talking about experimening with a new USB cable (which was deliberately wrong) ? Standing waves all over the place (low frequencies) and buzzing on top of it (high frequencies). Point here is (again) : I can try to be objectively listening to the sound and may fail in liking it, but the standing waves are the real judge and totally objective to begin with (because so easy to hear). And of course zero USB errors, but we know about that by now ...

Peter

[Scroobius]

Hey Peter,

.......jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space..........

So does the above infer that the "secret upgrade" is the main reason for the reduction in room effects? as surely it is that part of the G3 upgrade that will have improved jitter performance.

Cheers

Paul

[acg]

Now that I have had the upgraded G3 for a few days I have to say that it is extraordinary.  It is like the bandwidth has been increased at each end:  effortless and beautifully textured bass and a top end that just seems to be so unforced and right.  I am sure that imaging and soundstaging has improved and altogether it is a new experience for me as far as quality of my playback is concerned. 

[acg]

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room.  They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room.

Unless your nick is PeterSt ... then suddenly other things are going on ...
haha

Anthony, it may be just before your times on this forum, but others may recall that this is even an explicit measure for me. And I mean : explicit. So if (today) I notice even the slightest spur of standing wave (or dip) then it is by guarantee that I judge the whetever change to be wrong without further listening. And it is such an easy and comfortable means. Of course, one must first be in the stage of gotten rid of them (like Paul now, as it seems) - at least to some degree so you can have the reference.

Notice that the standing waves can occur in any frequency and they can be incurred for by any means which is detrimental to sound to begin with. Thus, "wrong" DAC and standing waves are your share; wrong filtering in-DAC (or by software) and it happens (ringing !), wrong ampifier - it happens (impedance !), wrong speakers (distortion) - it happens.

It is not so difficult to understand what happens if you only have some belief in the only one on the globe spouting such things (who is me), who comes up with a theory like this (theory, because a bit hard to measure) :

First you must envision sound waves in the 2D plane. Pick one direction the waves travel, like towards you. This of course with the notice that soundwaves travel in the 3D space but with 3D we can not envision a thing (too complicated). Thus, what I am saying is imaginable for 2D but for 3D it will work out just the same (OK, worse).

Say that a wave is put out jagged :

Thus, the intended shape is the dashed line, but from distortions the jagged line is the result.
Obviously it is so that any kind of distortion (source) can cause the original sine to be jagged (fed with noise).
On a side note : no nice sine ever exists in practice as all is mixed with 100s of different frequencies at any time, but do notice that each frequency originally always is a sine (and a nicely shaped sine if possible). This is how we can only envision things from a theoretical base (and the theory is mine).

Now let's see what could happen in air (still 2D) when two jagged waveforms travel. Try to see that the speaker (one only) is at the bottom of this picture :

(courtesy of I can't read which stock photo site)

The intended waves you can see in the middle of what we call distortion escursions (the jaggies go to the sides in this picture).
Also try to envision that these are not the exact same frequencies and the left hand one goes a bit faster then the right hand one. They touch at the jagged ends ...
Now the sound buzzes.

Keep in mind that frequencies of course touch all over, but it is about what we add to it with our electronics (and also speaker mechanics). Thus, no matter a violin may show quite square waves (still comprising of sines because that is how a square is build up), it is not really the idea that we make it more sharp than original. But maybe compare with a bag pipe which intends to buzz and is therefore a very difficult instrument because any over-buzz (the distortion we add) and it screams in your ears with a main characteristic that it is uneven (the buzzing resonates (oscillates)).

So, the intended wave is the middle part you can see, without the jaggies. Easy to see how it has become way more difficult for the two waves to interact. When the jaggies wouldn't be there, there's just 4 times the space to move without touching.

The jaggies are my over-emphasis of something which normally wobbles a bit. Thus, on the intended wave a small wobble modulates. This is already caused by jitter. And, especially the lower frequencies suffer first. Why ? well, because any even longer term jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space.
Two 50Hz frequencies ? Yes, if we count in the reflections ... (and what about left/right speaker, of course).

And now you see we are getting somewhere, because the room modes/nodes are about that in the first place (so Anthony, of course !). However, still the effect applies of two frequencies (or 100s of them) not being able to touch so easily when they are more lean. Thinner. Without distortion ...

Two waves will emphasize each other with a factor of two when they exactly meet. This is precise aiming when the wave is infinitely thin. Btw, notice that the imagining becomes quite hard now because we should be talking/thinking in the longitudinal direction where the waves exactly meet - say at the head of them. Still it applies, and the thicker that "rope" the easier the ends connect (and emphasize/add).
Important : in practice it does not work like this "connecting" at all, because it is about how the top (peak) and bottom side (dip) of two waves add (fall exactly over each other) or cancel (phase is 180 degrees different) and now you need to think a little bit 3D to see how waves may pass eachother when thin, because they must meet in the left/right plane at this small connection point.
(but it is on all directions because ... 3D)

So ... all theory only because in 3D all is 100 times more complex (and more crucial with that !) and nothing is to envision in 3D.
Fact is that once upon some time my room was stacked with PEQ's to get rid of standing waves which were everywhere. Today I indeed challenge people who listen in my room to find even one, no matter where and no matter the "yea, well, that corner is obvious !". So no, nothing of the kind, no-where.
And this indeed is with unheard bass powers and loudness (I easily play over 100dBSPL and still nothing goes wrong in any position in the room).
Remember me talking about experimening with a new USB cable (which was deliberately wrong) ? Standing waves all over the place (low frequencies) and buzzing on top of it (high frequencies). Point here is (again) : I can try to be objectively listening to the sound and may fail in liking it, but the standing waves are the real judge and totally objective to begin with (because so easy to hear). And of course zero USB errors, but we know about that by now ...

Peter

Hi Peter,

I suppose you could promote some academic argument as you have just made, but regardless of the distortion in the direct or reflected waves they are going to meet and they are going to be different amplitudes at different parts of the room (modal behaviour) regardless of the amount of distortion in the original wave.  Reflected waves are more distorted due to the physics of how reflection occurs and which frequencies are reflected by which materials and substrates.

If your room reverb time is 0.5s at a particular frequency or range of frequencies, which is a realistic number, the waves have traveled 170m or so off so many surfaces gradually reducing in strength until we no longer recognise them, and they bear little tonal resemblance to the original direct wave because they have bounced off so many surfaces.  Yes, the direct waves have the most energy with a little less energy after the first reflection, and if the 3D waves have a cleaner wavefront with less surface area to "meet" (that is essentially your theory I think) they will still meet and they will still make the cancellation.

In the end, I don't really know, and thinking about a 3D pressure wave is doing my head in so I will leave it here.  Your theory is duly noted but I would need more convincing (please don't feel you need to try!)

One thing about the Orelo's:  if distortion was really the ultimate aim, why a tractrix horn?  The lowest distortion horns are OSWG which is a conical derivative.  The tractrix has uneven dispersion across its frequency range, with even dispersion being critical to retaining the tonal balance of reflected sounds.  My system is all tractrix...they just sound better (the distortion perhaps?).

Cheers,

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Hey Peter,

.......jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space..........

So does the above infer that the "secret upgrade" is the main reason for the reduction in room effects? as surely it is that part of the G3 upgrade that will have improved jitter performance.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul,

The "secret upgrade" could be part of it, yes, although I myself would not be able to reason out how it technically works. It just has been empirically found (not only by me) that lower jitter on usb () sounds "better", whatever better exactly is or means to us.

Of course I am a bit in the blind because I don't have the standkng waves around, and btw, my last corner disappeard prior to that secret upgrade. So *if* that could be a measure, it will merely be the B'ASS and this is what I had in mind yesterday;

What I never told, is that this actually extra device in there (it is on top of your old gain stage although the old gain stage is now on the new board, including your old main chip for it), implies a net better measurement. But this is also something we slowely but surely learn. So, all NOS1a's go out better than they came in. And this is measurable. The sheer fact of more bass and more highs etc. are not measureable at all - at least not with the gear I have.

Although I will not be able to tell how it works out, a large part of this upgrade is the power supply; you hardly see it, but if you recall the warmth inside which was 40 to 45 celcius a bit depending on the ambient temperature, now it is cloe to ambient itself (in my case it is 25 celcius). Don't underestimate this and note that I did similar with the Stealth (that's actually where I got it from).
So it is all about "smart" regulation. It is about higher voltages here and lower voltages there.
Oh, what I could measure of it is that the 50Hz/60Hz from the mains can be 100% gone, but this depends on the combination of ground switches. I did NOT write down how that exactly should be, because it was (in theory !) counterproductive to something else, and I actually don't want to know.

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

I suppose you could promote some academic argument as you have just made, but regardless of the distortion in the direct or reflected waves they are going to meet and they are going to be different amplitudes at different parts of the room (modal behaviour) regardless of the amount of distortion in the original wave.  Reflected waves are more distorted due to the physics of how reflection occurs and which frequencies are reflected by which materials and substrates.

Hi Anthony,

Yes of course and I said similar myself (but left reflections out of the equation). But with this you can not say that it is thus allowed to add more distortion at the source.
So all counts and all adds up.

One thing about the Orelo's:  if distortion was really the ultimate aim, why a tractrix horn?  The lowest distortion horns are OSWG which is a conical derivative.  The tractrix has uneven dispersion across its frequency range, with even dispersion being critical to retaining the tonal balance of reflected sounds.  My system is all tractrix...they just sound better (the distortion perhaps?).

I hope my answer won't be too strange ...
First of all the top horn (which you are talking about) for me was a given fact. I mean, when Bert and I were talking about the design he was thinking of something else, and I just wanted this horn to be part of it. It was a proven concept.
What I almost forget is that I myself have worked on it for a year in a row (this is about ten year ago).
Lastly, while Bert has the knowledge, I could tweak (with capacitor / coil / resistor values). Or I tried things here at home on his commands. Or the other way around, I found something and we applied it in his studio.
The number of hours in it are uncountable.

We also used a special test track for the distortion you mention. This is something with a normal beat, driven by hits on a snare drum, with the very special effect of the skin being hit from the outside, slowly going to the middle in a time span of a minute or so. Thus, these higher very square and actually difficult frequencies change all the time.
Whatever we did, the distortion always happened at some stage in that minute, for say 15 seconds. If it was not at the beginning then it was in the middle and if not there it occurred at the end.
I ever and always kept on using that track to see where the distortion was and how long it lasts. This is because I knew/know that it is also source (quality) related.

Always and ever is not entirely true, because the past few years I don't use that track explicitly any more. But some times I just play it and then I pay attention to it.
6 months or so back, I noticed that there was no distortion at all, throughout. But what I recall from that is that all else was wrong (I really forgot).

Anthony, what happens there in that horn is really not much different from what happens in the room. That is maybe why you came up with it yourself. And it can easily be "tweaked".
That horn, of course, already has been tweaked to death and you can't compare it what "the horn guys" are doing, because they don't do it at all if you ask me. Can you do it ? do you have the measurement gear for it ?
The biggest trick for a horn is that it should not sound like a horn. Ask anyone who is used to Avant Garde's and who also auditioned over here. There's really a super difference for the "horn aspect". And you know, this is not my expertise ... this is Bert's ...

I will listen to that track again and report back. But it is a bit difficult at the moment because I am working on other things with mixed results. So I first must achieve a consistent situation.

Regards and thanks,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Now that I have had the upgraded G3 for a few days I have to say that it is extraordinary.  It is like the bandwidth has been increased at each end:  effortless and beautifully textured bass and a top end that just seems to be so unforced and right.  I am sure that imaging and soundstaging has improved and altogether it is a new experience for me as far as quality of my playback is concerned.

Thank you Anthony !
Peter

[Gerard]

Is it not time for a new 6moons review 

[KnB]

 

Finally I got time listening to G3     agree, it's a new dac!

[arvind]

Hi Guys,

The NOS G3 is just another brilliant upgrade from Peter. If I hadn't listened to it I wouldn't have believed that SQ could improve so dramatically. Clarity is phenomenal, especially in the mid range. Poorly recorded CD's which I would normally give a pass are now certainly listenable.

The only area the G3 lacks is a bit shy in the bass section. Fortunately with the Orelo's at my disposal this can be easily rectified.

Congratulations Peter for a super job. Would be surprised if it could get any better than this. Lord only knows how many times all of us have said that & been proved wrong each time.

Best regards,

Arvind