Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply

[PeterSt]

Hey Keith,

Thank you very much for this kind message. It once again tells me what we are doing this all for.

And yes, by the time you flew over the ocean, lets have that beer together.

Best regards from here,
Peter

[John H]

Probably firstly an apology for posting directly here.
My ‘excuse’ being that it is only as to the Phasure Mach 111 Audio PC that caused me to contemplate this matter.
To keep it simple, I understand that a vastly superior device that Peter has made available can have a huge effect as to the processing of high resolution audio. Maybe nobody has stated ‘revolutionary’ as yet but this seems to be the basis of the overall comments.
But my question is that when using a ‘streaming service’ such as Tidal, (where I presume little actual ‘processing’ takes place) does the benefit of such a superior device come into play? Basically, to go to the other end of the scale, would a simple laptop PC , (except perhaps re USB for a noiser’ 5 volt line) give the same quality of sound?

[PeterSt]

Hi there John,

But my question is that when using a ‘streaming service’ such as Tidal, (where I presume little actual ‘processing’ takes place) does the benefit of such a superior device come into play?

Basically, to go to the other end of the scale, would a simple laptop PC , (except perhaps re USB for a noiser’ 5 volt line) give the same quality of sound?

Let me start with this latter one and let me answer Yes.
Now what ...

All what audio is about, where it concerns playback by computer means, is eliminating the influence from current draw (which is spiky). Well, this counts for CD players just the same, but we hardly can influence those by software, nor by hardware unless we rebuild them our own (this is not a regular business, I'd say ).

When it is about PC's we can well say that the software works together with the hadware. Notice, however, that this is not seen by most or many and that it requires to "be" in this community for a longer time to just know and accept. Thus, I realize this is not you, John. Not yet. 

The software can make act the hardware as lean as possible.
The leaner the hardware the better the sound. This is related to noise, but the subject is too large to explain. In the end though, via the most various paths, it comes down to less influence on jitter, or IOW less jitter. And if not that, then something we don't quite grasp yet, but the more lean always helps.

So why the Yes, more above ?
Because the overhead of processing is so huge that a "lousy laptop" is overwhelmed by it.
Side note : a laptop, or anything with a too "small" processor (like it being not hefty) must work too hard like an old Trabant trying to do 100 Km/h. It can do it, but with a lot of noise and it won't be there fast (audio is all about speed as in "transients").

But when "we" stream from Tidal, we don't really stream;
XXHighEnd is a memory player all the way, meaning that streaming from Tidal can be regarded as "download to memory in full first and play from there".

With now your first question (quote) above answers, this puts context to the second, and suddenly the answer to that becomes a full stop No.

When we are out of the noisy environment, we can build ourselves a post powerful PC with the most continuous current draw instead of (SMPS) super spiky draw, let the software help doing that, and play all nicely and quietly "locally". No internet connection at that time, and only minimalist LAN connection to control the player in the audio PC, which does not containg anything else than a processor. Not even an SSD or other storage means. Nothing.
No current draw from anything which is not there and no OS (Operating System) attention to anything which is not there.

And tomorrow again better than today because we keep on "inventing". Most often not me, hence you guys out there with good ideas. I will try them though and I will make a product of it you can buy and utilize (literally).

I hope this was something of an understandable answer !
Kind regards,
Peter

PS: And a warm welcome here !

[John H]

Does anyone ‘see’ the PeterSt as St. Peter ? No response would be perhaps preferable.
To Peter’s reply re such as Tidal as against high resolution downloads & the practical benefit of using such as the Mach 111.
The Mach 111 is a “memory player”, (never saw it that way, but yes). Are all ‘dedicated audio PC’s seen to be, “memory players”?
OR, are you in fact saying, (in that you indicate ‘Tidal not really streaming’) that even the lowliest of PC’s or even laptops are in fact ‘playing’ as a “memory player “?
Can it be considered that a downloaded high resolution file needs a high level audio PC as against say the device required to play from such as Tidal?
IOW, would it be fair to say, that with such as Tidal, that a piece of music would be ‘deteriorated’ to a much lesser degree, than would a downloaded high resolution audio file if ‘played’ using a laptop PC?
Regards

[acg]

The Mach 111 is a “memory player”, (never saw it that way, but yes).

The Mach III is just a PC with a very specific build, nothing more.  XXHE is the memory player i.e. it loads all of the music file into RAM (memory) before it plays anything.  Some other software can be set to do this, but they don't really do it and they certainly do not do it as well as XXHE (nothing does).

Are all ‘dedicated audio PC’s seen to be, “memory players”?
OR, are you in fact saying, (in that you indicate ‘Tidal not really streaming’) that even the lowliest of PC’s or even laptops are in fact ‘playing’ as a “memory player “?

As I stated above, the Mach III is just a windows PC.  How XXHE treats Tidal is quite different to other players:  it does not stream the files (as in a continuous internet connection is required to download the music files); it plays only previously downloaded files and hence treats them exactly the same as normal music files stored on a hard drive that you may own so they sound the same as the ones you would have ripped from a CD or downloaded from elsewhere and stored on your PC.  There is no internet connection to the Mach III at all.

So no, other computers and laptops are not memory players (only software can make a memory player), they are just computers like the Mach III, but hardware wise they are generally quite different to the Mach III.

Can it be considered that a downloaded high resolution file needs a high level audio PC as against say the device required to play from such as Tidal?

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I will answer by saying that to get the best sound from digital all your files, be they from Tidal, a download site or ripped from cd's, need to be treated in the same way on the same hardware.  The Mach III and XXHE is the best way I know to achieve this.

IOW, would it be fair to say, that with such as Tidal, that a piece of music would be ‘deteriorated’ to a much lesser degree, than would a downloaded high resolution audio file if ‘played’ using a laptop PC?
Regards

A laptop PC is non-ideal in so many ways regardless of where the music file comes from:  it is a hardware problem.  XXHE used on a laptop will improve the sound one gets from their speakers once some time is spent getting the software set up.  Improve the PC hardware (eg. a Mach III) and the speakers will sound better again.

I hope that answers those questions John.

Cheers,

Anthony

[John H]

Thank you Anthony
It is clear now that the HXHE is ‘the memory player’.
Just for a better understanding, where does this actually  ‘reside’?
I thought it must be part of, an integral part of the PC.
Obviously it is ‘seperate’, as can be installed on even a laptop.
So now with my basic questions answered, (& reckoning that from what has been said, that an extremely high percentage of those using Tidal are not getting the best sound) I, as asked above, would just like this clarification as to the ‘relationship/usage’ of the ‘memory player’ to the Mach 111. 
Regards

[PeterSt]

John,

There is playback software (XXHighEnd)
and there is a PC to use that playback software (your laptop, any other PC or e.g. the Mach III LPS.
plus that same PC outputs the audio data to a D/A converter.

Confusing could be that the board we're posting right now, is named "XXHighEnd PC" which means as much as : a PC created for Audio Playback by Phasure. The first version of that was literally named "XXHighEnd PC".

2nd incarnation was the Mach II LPS which was passively cooled and with Linar Power Supply inside.

3rd and current version is the Mach III LPS, also with a LPS inside but now based on a Server Motherboard and further principles.

All three (could) use the same RAM-OS Disk which is a software quite created by Phasure and which disk (ssd) contains several Operating Systems each bootable into memory through XXHighEnd itself, and after which boot the disk/ssd can be removed from the system. The Mach II and Mach III anticipate the music data (as many and as large disks as you want) elsewhere, reachable over the LAN (Ethernet cable to e.g. an other PC, where that other PC (the "Music Server PC")  can be your old laptop, that providing thus the music data to the "Audio PC").

Yes, XXHighEnd runs on any Windows based PC (from of Vista).

The Mach II and Mach III PC's go together with XXHighEnd because XXHighEnd largely make them run lean, which is related to much lower power consumption (think 40-50W instead of 130W+). This in itself is required to let all run cool but meanwhile - and which is partly the same - let the processor run at very low clock cycles. This, while the processor is a hefty (Xeon) one.
The trick thus is to let run the Ferrari at a smooth 100, while it takes no effort at all to quickly go to 130 when it is needed for a period of 0.2 seconds, which also makes the effort unnoticable (inaudible).

Best regards,
Peter

PS: With further questions (which is very OK in itself) please take care not to go off topic, which is very easy, obviously. This topic is about a specific PC and it is easy enough to make a new topic and in the best suiting board. Btw, not at all saying that it was off topic already.

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

Is it still the better configuration(SQ wise) to operate 10/20 cores instead of 14/28 cores on the Mach III 14/28?

Honestly I haven’t attempted 14/28 since day one.

Best regards,

Arvind

[PeterSt]

Hi Arvind,

Honestly I haven’t attempted 14/28 since day one.

But did you set it to 10/20 then (at day 1) ?
I think I didn't ... (while you aked). Or did I ?

Regards,
Peter

[arvind]

Yes, I set it to 10/20.

[PeterSt]

Arvind - Then I would leave it like that.
But you can try 14/28 if you want of course.

I myself don't have new insight (I have a poor native) 10/20.

Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

maybe you wonder why you didn’t get any messages from me after you sent me my new Mach III with the Lush^2 more than two weeks ago.

The installation into my home network etc. was done in 1/2 hour without any problems, as this one is already the third Stealth you made for me in the last 2 1/2 years ;-)
The first short listening sessions before I travelled to Switzerland and again to Croatia exceeded all my expectations by far.

But today, after I finally changed the processor settings in the BIOS to 10/20 cores, I am completly bemazed.
There is ease and airiness in the sound, incredible finesse and clarity in the soundstage. Precision and warmth combined in a way I wouldn‘t have thought that it’s possible at all.

And... this kind of ease what I sometimes experienced with top level vinyl recordings on a top level turntable comes together with spectacular 3D resolution what vinyl will never give you. So... the best of both worlds, I would say.

Thank you, Peter!

Richard

[PeterSt]

Oh Richard, wow ...

Indeed it shouldn't have been a day longer before hearing back from you or otherwise I would have dropped you an email whether you'd may need help of some sort.
But I know you ... you aren't going to express about something until/unless you are 100% sure about what you write. So I sticked to that (idea) ...

But today, after I finally changed the processor settings in the BIOS to 10/20 cores, I am completly bemazed.

OK, so that really does tricks, right ? Of course it is what I found myself already, but because I "grant" myself a small week always before I am sure myself, and because this time is never really there (or a customer like you must wait an additional week), it's only the "snapshot" idea of the moment that keeps resident in my memory, never knowing whether it was the moment of the day, back at that time (/ moment).
So let's state it just works and that from now on the Mach III goes out with any 14/28 set to 10/20 ? ... it still feels like stealing, but alas.

There is ease and airiness in the sound, incredible finesse and clarity in the soundstage.

Personally I think in the end it is there where our focus should be; the airiness indeed, combined with the clarity which can't be expressed by means of words, but with finesse and especially ease. I emphasized two phenomena there and both theoretically counteract each other. But more and more it seems that just these too coincide. Maybe I can form some theories around this. Maybe my next post (in the Cables board) will attempt that ...

I just recieved by STealth Mach III. Wow!!! /The boot from RAM is even better! I must tell you everything sounds so beautiful, the music sometimes brings tears to my eyes. It is  hard to stop listening to music. You have done such a wonderful job. One of these days I will come see you and buy you a beer.
Thankyou so much for everything! I am glad I had you do this. You are the best!!!!  I love music more than ever!

I strangely quoted that text from Keith. Like so many, nobody heard of him prior to his message about the Stealth III, but I can assure you that Keith has been a valuable customer for more than 10 years. Personally I think Keith is a bit special (well, aren't we all) because of a "main" product he is selling (10 years ago and beyond and today still) and which is so 180 degrees an other product that it makes his small message (quote) much more valuable if you'd know what I am talking about. Now I don't know whether he sees this post, but if he does I hope he likes to eleborate a little.

Thank you Richard !
Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi there,

after a few more weeks of listening with my new Mach III, without visiting this forum, I was wondering today: Why there are no new messages under this topic?
But then I thought: yes... most likely all others are just enjoying the superb sound as I do and there is no need to go further towards the better because it is hard to imagine that there is any better (although we all know that there always is something to improve).
For more than a month now, like never before, I am just pleased with the SQ and there is no more intention to change anything.
Ok, once I tried different settings of the Lush^2 but came back to the original one. That‘s all I did.
 So, I don‘t want to repeat what I already stated above. I just want to confirm it, because after some time of listening, you really know...

Peter, one more time I want to say: thank you!

[PeterSt]

Richard,

Only yesterday I was thinking the same. But there is a general malaise going on in our audioland and this could be about being overwhelmed. Personally I can just sense that and it would be similar to me not being able to change drastically each other month. I mean, why did you not get yourself a pair of Blaxius^2 interlinks yet ?

Well ?

Hahaha

But it is a good example about myself. And this is thus what I was thinking of yesterday : I should possibily be raving about the Mach III once in a while and in this Mach III topic, but more honest would be to rave about the Blaxius^2 in *that* thread. But would it ? Maybe not because the base sound, I'm sure, comes from the Mach III. Still without the Blaxius^2 the sound would be nowhere near what I have today.
Or is it the Lush^2 ?
Well, surely Yes again because if I change its config to "a lesser one" all collapses again.

Some people are still getting used to their NOS1a/G3 upgrade. They just *can't* and get a new PC and get a new USB cable and get a new interlink, and when they're done they find out that possibly the internet cable should be changed into an ET^2.

Btw, yesterday we finished a first production HDMI^2 cable. No need to really tell about it because this environment (XXHighEnd in general) seems not to be in that direction. Or are we ?

Goof example for myself again : Did I finally make (have made) a Lush for my HT endeavours ? or a Clairixa for that matter ?
No. But I should have years ago. Good that I skipped because now it can be a Lush^2. Saves money ? yes, so to speak. But I'm just not up to all these changes.
So now I use the Blaxius^2 myself and the HT movies are suddenly outrageously good. Do I exaggerate ? no. But I had them made because they had to be tested because people asked for them (this is mostly outside of this forum). Same with the Lush^2. I was asked. Btw same with ET^2 and same with HDMI^2. Blahblahblah. But now I see what the Blaxius^2 does to the HT experience, shouldn't I fi-nal-ly make that Lush^2 for the HT connection ? (this is another PC somewhere down the basement). And what about the ET^2 then ? at least that could involve audio itself (goes to the same PC as mentioned Lush^2 should go to).

Another answer is : Lush^2's go out each day (since it exists). But the public response to them soon stopped. In here (Phasure) it never has been anything much to begin with, still 50 or so of the known people (to you and me) own one. Ha, this includes you.

Summarized, IMHO people can't keep on changing and they also can't keep on raving. I try, but it is quite difficult to not repeat yourself or another.
Meanwhile people like you may think that nobody agrees with you or that nobody buys anything. But the truth couldn't be farther.
Look at my post in the Lush^2 topic and how I asked to better stop writing myself. Two or so people said "no, please continue !" ... and next they don't say anything themselves.
Must we blame someone ? no. This is how it goes these days.

Everybody (or most) is silently happy.

Apologies for my bit of Saturday morning rant, but I suppose I agree with your gist, Richard.

Kind regards and thank you !
Peter