Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply

[fmanheck]

Hi all
I find myself guilty of a lack of posting for a little while now

But it has not been from any malaise. Truth is I've been super busy at work and most of my spare time has been spent listening. The music has been sounding incredible.

It is time to change my system signature as I have new speakers...or should I say old...older than I am. Custom made Altec 288 from the late 1940s converted to 277 field coils.

A system only sounds as good as its source. With the  Mach III, NOS1a/G3, Lush^2 I have the most musical source I have ever heard. Peter, keep an eye out for a new order at the online shop for a Blaxius^2.

Sorry for an OT post here a in couple of ways, BUT I was 16 years old when The Beatles White album, Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, and Moody Blues In Search of the Lost Chord all came out in 1968. The remastered 50th anniversary albums are fantastic to these old ears. They are just sublime in my system.

Speakers older than I am, playing 50 year old music sounding better than ever through a 21st century state of the art Phasure Digital music source. It doesn't get better than this....Until Peter says it does

[PeterSt]

Oh Fred ... what a great posting once again.


Peter

[Beauchamp Michel]

Hi Peter,

I have a question regarding the USB port to use. In your signature you mention 'USB3 from MoBo'. Does this mean that your Lush^2 cable is directly connected to the USB port located on the MoBo?

If so, then the MoBo in your Mach III is probably different from mine. Mine is the AsRock model EPC621D8A. On this latter the onboard USB port is located directly underneath the SSD drive of the Mach III. This makes it impossible to connect a cable. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Michael

[PeterSt]

Hi Michael,

"MoBo" USB3 ports are on the back of the motherboard just the same ...
In the most common language "we" refer to those. That there's also one upright in the middle of the motherboard is true but this is not common hence not common language that I know.

Regards,
Peter

[Beauchamp Michel]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the clarification.

Michael

[PeterSt]

And Michael, might it help - I am using (seen from the back) the right-most bottom one.
Not that I ever tried an other ... 

Peter

[stoni]

Hi Peter,
Seems like the new Phasue Mach III is the way to go, so I consider replacing my old Mach II

Reading through this and the other treads, there are some issues raising that I hope you can enlighten for me:

1. From what I read in your postings, the SQ-difference between Mach II and the new Mach III with 10 cores is in the same league as the difference between the 10 and 14/16 cores CPUs in the new Mach III. Is it still so, or is the 10 cores CPU closing in on the higher cores CPUs? It’s hard to see why 10 Cores version sounds that different from the higher number cores CPUs, if the CPUs are technical identical, except for the core-numbers and the CPU-cache size! And the higher cores-CPUs sound even better when you make them work with 10 cores only!

2. If they are not equal, is the 12 cores CPU similar to the 10 or to the 14 cores CPU? I ask because the sweetspot regarding which CPU to choose seems to be the 12 cores version. After all, 750Euros (incl our VAT) less than the 14 cores CPU is a lot of money if they do sound the same! At the same time, using the 10-Cores CPU seems meaningless when 1250 (again including our VAT) more Euros give a much better SQ from an already expensive PC!

3. So, the big question remains, do you plan to listen to the 12 cores CPU, and are they available? There are several versions of the Xenon Gold CPUs with the same core-numbers, is it OK to ask which 12cores CPU you use?

The lifespan for these PCs are short, and second hand value low. Feeding Intel with unnecessary money doesn’t feel right

Regards Stein

[PeterSt]

Hey Stein,



I will try to read your post tomorrow with a fresh mind; tonight it makes me too dizzy. Haha.

But but an attempt for a thorough answer : the Mach II and Mach III don't resemble anywhere SQ wise. I mean, it is not related to CPU cores among them. I could also say :

The number of cores (hence the CPU) in the Mach II may matter a little (which even could be a psychological thing) while they matter vastly in the Mach III. You could say : that more detailed the Mach III brings forward the music.

The fact (?) that a 24 core running on 20 cores only sounds better than the 24 running on 24, should be related to "more general resources" available for 20 cores vs 24 cores. Regarding this, think of all the processors of the Scalable family actually running against their "tops", but the one does it with more frequency and the other with more cores. In the end all perform the same but with different means and purposes. Now, things suddenly change when you have available the same resources, but shut off a few cores (but not too many for reasons beyond the scope of this post - *but* which means you can't do this with a too low core count processor).

The 12/24 seems to be in the middle of everything and in my theory it doesn't make sense really. And if you think it does, my advice would be most certainly to take the 10/20. Or try the 12/24 it as the first person ... (if it can be obtained easily - the 14/28 is fine on that these days).

Feeding Intel with unnecessary money doesn’t feel right

Yes, I would agree on that. *If* I could be thinking of it.

Kind regards,
Peter
 

[PeterSt]

Well, although the story has been told already from an earlier similar experience, today I like to repeat it but with more emphasis, if possible :

Last night was the most painful of this year.

As you may have read in another post from me an hour or so ago, yesterday my Mach III suddenly did not work any more. All right, I tried something which only worked for a few days and apparently that was long enough (never mind what it was . Anyway, because this was right against listening time, it couldn't be changed back. But I always had my Mach II somewhere ...
That worked within 5 minutes (I actually love the RAM-OS Disk principe for that !) so off I went.

My perception of if was super positive in advance and actually I kind of felt ashamed already because what would happen if now my Mach II would sound better than the Mach III ? I mean, this could the most easily happen with so many things changed since last May or so. New  software settings I just found two days ago (see topic in Sound Quality), Lush^2, Blaxius^2 ... and indeed, right from of the first tones I was told that the sound was "softer" in the sense of "more palpable". My response : Yea, I hear that too, but mind you, this is the new settings I applied only yesterday in full (session). So I think you hear that. Anyway, I hear it too.

And this was about the last positive to mention about the Mach II.
It was one-big-struggle to get decent sound from it, which I could not achieve by any means (but I left the ^2 cables as they were). So I ended up with finding music, which was so un-articulate that I would not be bothered by the inability to perceive what's said in the lyrics.

The previous time I had to revert to the Mach II for an evening, the latter mentioned was not so obvious. Or at least not that I recall. Now, however, it was (brain)painstakingly painful to not being able to hear what's being sung, while your brain now is used to be able to do that in unsurpassed fashion. Strange.

Anything without lyrics even more so was painful because all was grey and smeared and, well, dead.

My mood got so bad from it that I actually had to cut off the preparation of dinner I was working on.
Yea, sounds silly, I know.


With the above - and which is not exaggerated anywhere - I once again want to bring across how super-much the Mach III bring to music and which - as it now turn out - does all on its own. So nothing was changed for environmental matters (no changed cables etc.) but it sounds even more like a drag than I recalled and for which I out of all was 100% prepared (because of the earlier experience). But not.

Might it matter for someone : this is about the 14/28 set to 10/20 Mach II against the 2640 (10/20) of the Mach II. So both (set to) 10/20 and it is thus really not about that.

As you hopefully know, this is not about selling something (also note that Stein - see a few posts back - is currently waiting for his Mach III to finish ). It is about the sheer guarantee that you miss out if you think that your Mach II is good enough. Well, OK, it is as long as you don't know better, just like I (and so many others) used the Mach II in all happiness for two years. But how fast do our brains adapt to newer situations. It is unbelievable. Really.

Peter

[briefremarks]

Peter,

Of all the innovations this year, the Mach III has been, without a doubt, the MOST significant.  It really has provided the foundation for a whole new level of SQ. 

Ramesh

[coliny]

MachIII Ethernet Speed:-
With my old PC I used a router ethernet connected to Audio PC to get RDC remote control. The router would not connect via ethernet with MachIII. On Peters advice I solved this problem by using Music PC to make RDC connection to MachIII and another RDC connection via wifi with the router to remote control. This works fine and only one ethernet connection to Mach III needed this way.
Subsequently I found out why router would not connect to MachIII. MachIII will only ethernet connect to 1G/s capable devices and my router was 100K/s max. So if you can't make an ethernet connection with your MachIII this could be the reason.

Colin

[PeterSt]

Ah, Thank you Colin. This can be useful to others indeed.
Allow me to rephrase this all somewhat so it can be related to the normal situation (I myself have trouble reading this back but I know what you have done - I think ) :

Tablet (or Laptop) RDC to -> WiFi -> Router -> WiFi -> Music Server PC with WiFi RDC to -> Ethernet cable -> Audio PC
(a bit tongue breaking this, so I hope I put it right)
This situation does not allow the Internet to see the Audio PC (and the other way around), which is good (but if necessary can be realised by means of making a Bridge between the Network Adaptors for the cable vs the WiFi respectively).

The bold part is a kind of unique - at least I never heard someone doing it like that. It relates to the fact that one does not have a Music Server PC with two LAN ports (typical for a laptop) while it has WiFi (again typical for a laptop). So the whole point : the Music Server PC here is a laptop ...

This works fine and only one ethernet connection to Mach III needed this way.

... which I think should read as : The Music Server PC now needs to hve one Ethernet connection only.

The mere crucial one reads here :

MachIII will only ethernet connect to 1G/s capable devices and my router was 100K/s max.

So Colin, you already told about this perfectly and I have nothing to add. But what I should sneak in anyway is the sheer "impossibility" to find this as a reason. I suppose I would have thrown all out of the window in such a situation. So, very well found/done !

Thank you for sharing this.
Kind regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Hi there All,

In the OP I now rated the 12/24 equally to the 14/28 and the 16/32. But watch out : while the 14/28 may be marginally "less" (whatever that exactly is) than the 16/32, and the 10/20 has its specialty in a somewhat darker and more "heavy" sound which is very easy to like very much, the 12/24 seems to be the emphasis of the 10/20.

Right ...
What does that all mean and what happened ?
 
By accident I saw a 12/24 available against a "sale" price, so as a rightfully obsessed audiophile I bought it. I mean, nobody would anyway (as it seems after a small year) and without the experience nobody ever will. This, while this processor is significantly cheaper than the next-higher, the 14/28. I mean, 600 euros is a lot of money for something which could work and only was not tried. Also, I figured that would it not work out, I could stuff it into an ERP Server Chassis (my other life).

So I struggled ...
At first I thought it was a kind of fine once you spent the money and have some need to judge it as fine (haha) but merely and more over, Ciska here told within a minute or two that this showed "less sharp highs". OK, my attention did not really go there and I also could not really hear what she meant, but that in itself should be a positive. Maybe not only to her, but also to new Mach III customers.
But I wasn't so sure ...

After two days I couldn't bear it any more. The sound was too dark (too much the emphasis of the 10/20) with the notice that I set this 12/24 to 10/20 from about the start and that all the time I contemplated to set it back to 12/24. But I didn't like the hassle (reboot 6 times all together plus attaching the monitor and the like). Instead I put in a 14/28 to see what I actually was missing or what I should achieve with the 12/24 (not knowing how to do it).

So Yes, the 14/28 is more refined. But similar to the 10/20 once you are used to that a bit, you can see what now lacks there (in the 14/28). And G-D I couldn't like it any more. So Yes it is refined, but the 12/28 brings forward things which I couldn't describe really and which just are not present with the 14/28 playing. What a stupid stuff.

A day further it went as far as being fed up with the 14/28 and the 12/24 was dunked back in (someone over here gets crazy of this, because I don't ever do these things myself).
But No, I did NOT like it for the better. Grrr.

I tried all the XXHighEnd settings I could imagine to be of importance here, but it just did not want to help. And - psychological - psychological - psychological ... all this time I was thinking of this kazillion possibilities I would have with cascaded Lush^2 and Blaxius^2 possibilities.
But should I ? Should I really try to solve it by such means ? I mean, the ^2 cables were never attempted to solve issues. Only to improve sound, right ?

I dove into my notes about the Lush^2 and found this description at the 2nd or 3rd configuration I ever tried, and the very first I registered :

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W
This showed a super sound.
It completely changes the sound from a somewhat congested (too white) highs to ever so lasting colored cymbals. Btw, this is what I had in mind with it for a change (I found the highs too profound).
What came with it is a super fluid/liquid bass which sings and plays music. I actually never experienced the bass like that.

And btw funny, I only now read the last line about the bass. I never saw this when I selected this configuration because I went for the issue with the indeed too white highs.

Well, I was cured instantly ! Now I suddenly had this completely different presentation of about all, but with things being right. The highs were now like real metal and with the UN-finesse metal should have. Yeah, "un-finesse", what's that then. Well, that should be too silky and more going towards plastic (this is way too drastically put). Say that it reminds of the Silverstone USB3 card but then with a somewhat higher resolution of the "holes" (I assume that people know what I mean here, and otherwise too bad). It implies a more being present of cymbals and maybe especially hi-hats. They get a life of their own. Not really their own space (which is an other phenomenon) but less blended with the music and more played by a (drummer) person.

But actually it isn't about this, although it solved the problem. Man, it is about that BASS. And first off about that : about how now THAT plays in its own hemisphere. And yes, that seems to be more about "own space" as such, and for a bass this could be what I want with it. I mean, how often have I talked about the electric bass player who is on stage with his separate and personal(ly chosen) amplification and speaker system ? And how unfair is that to us, not being able to replicate that physically ?
Well, IMO this combination of the 12/24 and particular Lush^2 configuration does precisely that.

I am not really sure how to describe the presentation as a whole; maybe it is about the specialty of being able to present umpf in everything where it is required (this even includes voices) without that leading to disco sound. This really gives the music a natural feeling with it never being too lean (thin). I think it will be so that the general character (nature) of it is still a "less sharp" highs which expresses in the very square representation (as in well-rendered transients) being more palpable. Snare drums feel more palpable and if you may attention to real life snares ... they are not so pain staking sharp (especially the maple wood ones are not). So this improves too; more wood (like the shell of the snare) where wood is to be.

So where does this leave current 14/28 and 16/32 owners ?
I wouldn't worry. I used the 16/32 myself for a couple months (a year ago when testing the then new Mach III). It is great. After that I tested the 14/28 - it is great (and I can listen to it regularly because almost everyone buys it and I sneak it in sorry, part of the job ).
But these are to-tal-ly different for sound. With that, the 12/24 is not a gadget either. And, the very first days (when it was not burned in yet, or my ears weren't) I dedicated it as very Rock oriented (suddenly all the AC-DC sounded great - no, superb with it). This did not change I think, but the rest now plays too. With more umpf. Less light-footed (and light-footed certainly is a virtue too).
I have been thinking about offering an "upgrade", which would be a possibility to exchange (replacing these processors is relatively very easy). But it still would be expensive, whatever *that* exactly is in this crazy world (of audio). Could be 1100 euros plus shipping. But you could exchange. This week this, the other week that. In the end you made a choice and indeed payed a 1100 extra for having the choice. It would require (!) a Lush^2 (but everybody has that, I think).
But do I advise this to anyone ? NO. The (for me psychological) problem is mere in what new Mach III customers to come should be offered. Would that be the 14/28 against more money with a kind of guarantee it is OK ? or would that be the 12/24 against 600 euros less with a 100% guarantee it is special but which you may not like ? ... or would that be the 1100 euros extra again so you can chose ??

One thing : people going for the 10/20 should seriously consider to spend ~300 more and pick the 12/24 ? Not even that. But (and now don't get confuses please) : people who think that for "descriptive reasons" they should go for the 10/20 against 950 more for the 14/28 (let alone the 16/32 which is 1400 more), should go for the 10/20 *and* the 14/28 (not 950 more but 1100 more - not a big deal). Thus with the "descriptive" reasons I mean : if you go for the more dark sound which inherently is better for rock-alike music, then the 10/20 suffices and is normal, while the 12/24 is 5 fold that and could be too much of it. So all what you are doing is contemplating between the more refined sound of the 14/28 (or 16/32) and the somewhat more "heavy" sound of the 10/20 or certainly more heavy sound of the 12/24 together, against about the same price.

OK, I better stop.
Peter


PS: The 16/32 is reinstated, assuming odd production problems with it (6 months or so ago) to be behind us by now.

[stoni]

Peter, what did I say some posts ago, maybe the 12/24 is the sweet spot

Well, some words about my experience with the Mach III 14/28, I’ve had it for about a month now – upgraded from Mach I to Mach II and now Mach III… And just to make it clear, I do not for a second miss some umpf with the 14/28 in my setup, it’s there in spades.  And the mentioned light-foot sound presentation I will say is its force – the more liquid and refined sound presentation is what I’ve always been looking for, my choice of hi-fi components reflects this.
 
Peter has said much about his Mach III SQ-impressions with his Phasure NOS1, myself I still have an older none NOS DAC, but interesting to see that I recognize many of Peters words about the new SQ.

First, the upgrade to Mach III was a bigger step than going from Mach I to Mach II, I agree with one of Peters description, the sound from the Mach III is like using a new DAC-technology.

The main difference is increased realism, like going from HD to 4K resolution on you TV. Listening to Sade, Kari Bremnes or other female singers, all sorts of muddiness, glory-filters, photo retouching, or whatever we shall call it, they are all gone. What is left is an utterly clean and natural voice, and a liquidity in the sound that is addictive. In addition, the holography and 3D-feeling are extremely good, if the soundtrack has preserved this information in a god way - the difference between a good and a bad recording however is shown even more clearly now

It’s indeed interesting to see/hear how much the PC’s influences the DAC, and how sound can be bettered in my setup, even if the the DAC and loudspeakers are not any longer the newest models.

Regarding the price for the PC, I did some research before upgrading this time, and evaluated several other Audio-PC products. They all costed the same, or more than the Mach III. I admit some with better design than the Mach, but they were all PC’s put together with old/low class PC-parts and CPUs. Parts costing considerably less than what Peter uses. At the end, the choice was easy, Peters PC is indeed in another class than the rest out there!

A final tip, take off the lid and replace it with a black cardboard, sounds better

Regards
Stein

[PeterSt]

Hi Stein,

I am the most happy with your counterweight because it is mighty difficult to in all honesty describe what I experience for the good cause of the Mach III becoming a bit more affordable. And this in the midst of people like you just having obtained the higher priced which should be for a good reason just the same.

I like to leave at at this and hope that people now have a well balanced description of everything.

Kind regards and thanks a lot,
Peter

PS: I will think about this cardboard because you may very well be right (and it is not the first time you are offering this suggestion ).