XXHighEnd

Is it only me or does this sound the best ever?
Lately I was trying to get the last bit of hardness out of some female voices,
but it is Peter who managed this!
I did not expect much from all these weird experiments and after startup I only got a lot of distortion.
So put Q1 higher and now it sounds perfect.
Only first impression but they count the most for me!
Silky highs and deep basses, all I ever wanted!

Thanks Peter!

[mod: changed the topic's title because of confusement with 0.9y-6 otherwise)

How high? 14?

And this is with KS, right?

Q1 = 11, Q2,3=18, Q3,4=0, KS, engine4, DAP,
And now back to listening!
(Not tried anything else yet)

Thanks. I cant see any special mode option, though. Will try tomorrow on the dedicated pc.

The special mode is shown in one of the log-files.

I can get 'special mode' :)...

... but it's all distorted :(

It's now 1:30am and I think I've found the optimum setting (for my system). Are you ready for this? It's: Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4/Q5 = 3/9/15/5/10!!!

Don't even ask how many permutations I've been through to get here...

The caveat it that with this setting, sometimes I get 'special mode'... and the requisite distortion...

BUT... sometimes I get 'normal mode'... and such, such sweet music :love:

I'm happy... and very tired... but not too tired for just one more tune!

Ciao,
Mani.

Guys, this is crazy. I already told that it depends on the state of your PC whether you will achieve the same as before or not, and even then, you can't see it otherwise than looking in the log file. And you know what ? I already took it out.
:swoon:

But ...

I think I can auto-calibrate it. In the end this is necessary too, because if only a few samples are being skipped here and there, you won't notice it, but it is wrong in the mean time.
I have this a kind of working already, and when more than xx samples are skipped I receive a message about it. When the message is not there, it obviously guarantees that I'm listening to "all the samples" which is what I want.

While the latter is not about Special Mode as such, it is needed to get there automatically. So, I set myself to, say, auto-tune Q1 to just that value that allows Special Mode to jump in and next fixate it for the session.
Whether Special Mode will work at all, depends on the soundcard I think. Possibly it is so that the higher the internal buffers (latency) the better it works. I don't know that yet.

For now my advise would be : let it rest.

Funny thing is : while my tweaking by means of Q1 -which works internally totally different from what is done for Engine#3 - was a kind of surrogate to what happens compared to Engine#3, this Special Mode now again is the big secret for Engine#4. And then to think I discovered it by accident ...

Peter


PS: Mani, what you did to get there would indeed be the way to do it from a technical point of view. I tried that too but gave up within 5 minutes. In the end this is about creating a "balance" in your system. I wouldn't know how to measure *that* though, or otherwise I would be working on it.

No special mode (and no desire to spend hours in testing to achieve it).
But I have to say that the horrible x-fi on my studio PC has never sounded better than with your exact settings :)
(but without upsampling)

That's funny because I first used the Terratec and it sounded so good that I forgot I was using it.
Then with the Gigaworks-DAC there was not really a big difference :scratching:

Well, I for one am very, very happy to do this


This would be great... provided it works for as many cards as possible.

Mani.

PS. My Q settings add up to 42, which must be the optimum setting (for all you Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fans)

"The Normal Mode shows that everything should be allright, and no skips or distortions should be audible; anyway, technically all is "measured" correct.
Not so with the Special Mode, which actually denotes things are NOT RIGHT. However, it was found that just in the case this is "near the limits" things can be allright just the same, but everything "behaves" differently. Look for different sound here !"

Peter, what else can you tell us about this, without divulging too much IC? If 'special mode' is going to become another USP for XXHE (along with AP), it'd be nice to know a little more about what's happening that might be changing the sound.

Mani.

Mani, what can I say ? this will just going to be my little secret for Kernel Streaming ...

But anyway, it seems better to wait for a little commercial after it is clear that everybody can use it, which of course is different from sharing it with you out there as soon as possible, if it were only to confirm what I perceive from it. Next, it also should be (and confirmed to be) bit perfect, assuming you (all) would agree upon leaving out some samples - that causing better sound, is really a bad commercial.

It is a pretentious thing anyway, because officially it can't be done.
:whistle:

Pfff,

Playing with 9Y-6 with engine 4 for two days now and still flabbergastered...  :heat:

Whatever I play, vocal (men, women), instrumental, old stuff (50's, 60's), new stuff, high res (24 bit) it has never sounded as natural and smooooth..... as at this very moment! :yahoo:

This "analog" sound (or should I say "holy grail"?) is all about harmonics I believe and yes it's all there. I've been  :drool:, I,ve been  :cry: and :biglol:

Wonderful low region, it's silky smooth in the "mid section" and clear and detailed in the highs but what surprises me the most is that all this warmth an musicality is not at all due to loss in detail and clear- and crispness.

Didn't tune the Q settings untill now, just followed the guys that experimented with that (thnx guys!), can't imagine that it could get much better but nonetheless!

Fabulous work Peter, don't understand what you do, how you do it but fabulous it is! Thanks

Sweet mother of all that's good and pure - pure music, no fatigue!
It's kind of annoying first if you used to listen to "digital", bu then it's vivid, detailed. I'am listening to Jacintha - Lush Life [JVC XRCD] and can't get enough. Vocals, trumpet, like I'd be live at concert.

I had a chance to do some serious listening today to 9Y-6 with engine #4 and I agree with the rest on this post with their findings. Compared to engine #3, I myself noticed the mid-range really came to life, the highs at first seemed a bit rolled-off but what I realize they were more refined and had less edginess.  Everything was smoother, more dimension and musicality.  I haven't worked with too many settings but been happy with Q1 =5, Q2-3= 10 and Q3-4=0. I should have done some more listening between engine #3 and #4 with different music material but wanted to see what all the excitement was with KS and its sweet!  Thank-you Peter!

Tony

Thank you all. But I'm afraid you ain't seen nothing yet ... As a matter of fact, I unveiled a new dimension where all stopped with WASAPI. Oh, I think I still can improve on that, but here ... haha ... wait.

:teasing::teasing:

I have turned the Special Mode into standard way of working (although it will be an option by itself), meaning that Q1 will do its work and all the range is Special Mode now (until it breaks because there is a bandwidth for it). Now, I have been listening and listening and listening yesterday, and from the first second till the last my jaw has been hanging on my shoes somewhere. Not only because of the sound itself and inmense details, but merely because of the constant thinking "how can this ever be possible while all is still 'bit perfect' ?". So, what is actually infulenced here ? is it something we can't measure ? does it impeed for not bit perfectness at all - but farther away than were we measure (like the loop back and recording could be "too close") ?

Yeah, and you thought I was talking about what you can perceive yourself in Special Mode, right ? haha, no ...

We all may take our Guinness Books of Records, and look for the lowest latency possible. So yes, I am back on that (low latency) track for when the best sound happens.
Remember, MS always said 20ms for Kernel Streaming. Btw, I have found why and it would actually be 16ms.

So ... 16ms. Let's see. For 32 bits and 176400 samples per second this is 8 x 176400 = 1411200 bytes per second (2 channel). Per ms this is 1411.2 bytes. Notice that for WASAPI this is the best I can achieve currently, BUT it will merely come down to this same 16ms I mentioned. This is related to the accuracy of internal timers. Thus, 16 x 1411.2 = 22579 bytes, which is 2822 samples. This is the actual guaranteed latency which can be achieved on a Windows system, for two channels of 32 bits at 176.4KHz sample rate.

Summarized : 2822 samples is the guaranteed latency for a Windows system. This is equal to 16ms.

FYI, this is the latency for the communication with the driver. The driver itself may communicate with the hardware at 48 samples or even 32 (which I have seen from IIRC an RME Hammerfall). Such a low latency is meant for the Pro guys, and more common would be something like 1024 or 2048 samples, which is what we would be using for playing music (and which actually doesn't need any latency as such).

So, our Windows program can sustain 2822 samples latency (16ms) and the soundcards can do 2048 at worst and say 48 samples at best.

But here is Kernel Streaming Special Mode ...

Currently (still 32/176400) I am at 176 BYTES of genuine latency. This is 22 samples. This is 0.125ms.
And this is where I just stopped because I didn't want to know the limits yesterday. I played with it for hours and hours without a single tick heard, and with the soundcard at 64 samples (so net latency would be ~0.375ms).


So here is my new dimension. Or actually half of it. The other half I won't tell about, and this is what I am going to exploit further now.
No, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Peter

How can it be... Hahahaha!!  :rofl:

  :good:

Been experimenting with 5-06 all morning. Here's what I find:

1. Unable to get into special mode,
2. At Q1=5 distortion is profound and X3PB file shows normal mode.
3. First time kernal streaming sounds REALLY good on my system.
4. Settings for REALLY good: Q1=7, Q2+3= 4, others 0, 2x arc prediction. (these are vastly different from engine 3)

The sound is different, suddenly engine 3 sounds more digital and engine 4 vocals no longer sound recessed in a hall. I need more listening to know if one is preferable, could be a more refined level of sound options have finally sprouted here.  :)

Might I be in special mode though normal is what the log shows?

I finally did some listening comparison on the dedicated pc.
y4 with engine 3 Q1=4 and all rest to 0, no upsampling (y5-6 does the same with this configuration).
This is the best sound i have ever got from this system. It has PRAT, it doesnt fatigue me.

y5-4 with engine #4 KS. With the same settings i get the special mode, I had to raise to Q1 to 19 to go back to normal mode. But the problem is that i dont hear a damn difference between normal mode and special mode :(
So i settled for Q1=18. I tried to raise the other sliders and didnt like or didnt change much.

So, the comparison was between wasapi Q1=4 and KS Q1=18, all attended and without upsampling.

KS is less reliable, sometimes xxhe crash, while wasapi is finally stable.
The sound of KS is like wadding cotton. the midrange is super smooth, while the upper end is rolled off. the voices SEEM more natural but the instruments like cymbals, percussions loose the sparkle and dont ring right to me. I started to experience listening fatigue after about half an hour, whuich is a bad, bad symptom.

It's like the sound is more natural but less realistic.

With my current setup (remember that i am forced to use 2048 samples and that the equalization adds latency), i definitely prefer engine #3.

Peter, I can't wait to hear this revelations your're talking about, espacially that my new speakers are coming  :)

http://www.aurumcantus.com/aurumcantu-loudspeaker/loudspeaker_v3m.htm - sweeeet  8)

Hey Gerard A, Han, Marcin and Tony S, what mode are you in, normal or special?

Hi,

Did try 5-06 engine#4 on laptop via USB. So, I have a problem because my USB DAC is 24/96, but the only way I can get sound out is when I set DAC is 16/44. So, I cannot use DAP or QAP, but so far the sound is really interesting. I would say the sound is really analog and sweet. Need more listening still.
About Qs: So, the above listening was performed with this setting: -4/0/0/0/0. Log file shows "Normal mode". BTW, can someone explain what is Normal and what is Special modes? Which is the one?
I was experimenting with Qs with engine#4 and found correlation: -4/0/0/0/0 gives the most precise sound - meaning that I hear things more clearly and can better recognize instrument sound, however when moving Q1 up (till value 25) the sound gets kind of fuller, but individual things get harder to recognize. As a result I stay with lowest.
Based on above findings I am starting to think (also based on Peter's earlier posts) that by using more Qs (sliding them up) we kind of start loosing audio samples which are sent to play. Maybe I am wrong, but if we listen to lossless music then we should be hearing all audio samples which are in the audio file. Otherwise we move towards lossy music, because lossy music has less info inside. I think by using Qs we fool ourselves because wider soundstage or other things we can achieve with Qs does not mean it is better, we just think it is better however we listen to less samples than there are in the file. So, the above correlates with my listening experience because at -4/0/0/0/0 I hear things more precisely which altogether forms a wonderful music experience.
Peter, your signature says you also play with almost all Qs to 0, so is there at least some part of truth in my theory I described above? :)

Thanks,

Ivo

I am still unaware of what is meant by Special Mode vs Normal mode, but I think this version using Engine 4 is the best yet on my system.  I seem to be able to follow individual instrumental lines much better than with Engine 3 (which a month ago was the best I had ever heard).  I just don't want to stop listening.

I installed 9Y-05-06 today and can report that on my system engine 4 is easily superior to the previous version.  Like the other poster, I'm not sure what Special mode is and how one knows if it is invoked, but I really dig what I'm hearing. Thanks and congrats Peter.

The release notes of 9y--5-05 & 6 describe how to reach "special mode". This is for listening to engine 4, kernel streaming only. Chances are if you didn't do the procedure described by Peter and your using engine 4 you are in normal mode. To know which mode you are in you must tick the log activities checkbox at the very bottom of the settings tab. When you do that a temp data file is created in your 9y--5-06 directory. Each time you start a listening session an X3PB file is created in that temp directory. Go in that directory after starting a session and open the x3PB file. When the file opens look towards the bottom, you will see what mode you are in.

According to the release notes, you should start your Q1 setting high, around 30. Play a song and check the mode, if it is Normal then stop playing and reduce the Q1 setting. Repeat this until you reach the first instance of Special mode when you play a track. According to Peter, Q1 settings below the initial instance of Special Mode will cause distortion. I think one of the things Peter is trying to determine is whether all of us are able to initiate special mode.

When I did this my music distorted when Q1 reached 5 0r 6 so I set it to seven and it sounds great but the log file still shows normal not special mode.  So I guess I haven't heard the best of kernel streaming. This doesn't surprise me given my system.  ;) However, I've been listening to engine 4 all day and it is VERY pleasing.

Ok, I'll try again : Kernel Streaming Special Mode is a means of sending the samples to the driver, allowing for ultra low latency. So, even way more low than you can currently use with 5-06. What I exactly do to get there remains a :secret:.

This description would fairly meet my own, BUT, for the earlier KS versions. What I have here now seems Engine#3 to the extreme, but with a little flavor of "this can't be right".
I am rather sure the trick is in the length of the driver's buffer, and Telstar, notice that with the long buffer you can't achieve the low latency towards the driver. I know that now. The burst the driver needs, takes away the (ultra short) response needed towards the driver (but I'm not complete satisfied with my own description here). So I'm afraid you can't compare.

Again :


We could say that this is a contradiction and therefore wrong. But IMO it just describes what is going on with KS and the higher latency operation.

Well, this prooves that my simulation of Q1 (normal mode) works, hence does similar as what it does with Engine#3. I didn't really try it myself yet, because I am at, say Q1 = -450 or so. Haha. But towards there the story is the same, but a little bit outrageously more.
Anyway Ivo, this is exactly how people -explicitly testing- described Q1 from Engine#3 in the beginning. And, if you'd make this a psychological thing, it becomes more easy to understand :

When we spit out the individual samples (or close to that) they sound as individuals. When we spit them out by thousands a time, they sound like a mass.

I think very few people will disagree with this, if one at all. The problem is though, from the technical point of view this is complete BS. Still it works like this for KS at least, and I'd say, watch the next version. Thus :


I wish that were true, because it would be the technical explanation. But it isn't ... (test for bit perfect and you'll know).
I even would say it is rather the other way around (incurred by the technique again) : the lower the latency the harder it will be to get all the samples "there" in time, the bigger the chance we loose samples, the higher (faked) dynamics get. But this too isn't true. As long as we can check for bit perfectness, it isn't.

All 'n all it is becoming a nice discussion, which btw always has been there, but is today somewhat more extreme because the differences are more extreme.
Wait till the next version ... I guess you don't know what to say anymore, apart from something definitely being very wrong in our thinking.

Peter

Peter,

Still about those 2 modes. It seems I tried Q1 from 30 down to -4 and cannot get "Special mode" entry. Does it mean if I have "Normal mode" then I have higher latency than if I were in "Special mode"?
Also, if there is "Normal mode" at Q1=30 and Q1=-4, then I guess better to use -4, ah?

Ivo

No. You, apparantly, can go so low in Normal Mode already. But for sure somewhere this will stop; Q1 in 5-06 just doesn't go low enough. Notice it may be USB allowing for this.
So, I just finished the code that will go as low as 0.05ms in Special Mode (and I know I can reach 0.125ms), while 5-06 goes to 1ms as lowest (Q1 = -4).

Keep in mind : in the next version Special Mode is just a choice in XXHighEnd, so once chosen, you will always be in it.


Yes, I think so. But it may be personal.

I can't get special mode with my M-Audio Transit (USB, TAS1020B). The lowest Q1 setting without cracks is at 3. Also I can't play KS/WASAPI at 24/96, but that's in every player - M-Audio drivers suck!

No, wrong (I think); it will be your 8 times lower byte rate (because I calculate with 32/176.4 while you do 16/44.1). :yes:

Thanks Peter. Had to change my signature again. Kernel Streaming  is unbelievable.

I agree the kernel streaming special mode in the latest XXHE release is superb and a very audible improvement over the previous version.  I presume a large part of the improvement is due to reducing latency?  I'm using a Lynx AES16 card.....is anyone using an async USB or firewire interface with XXHE and, if so, are you getting an incremental improvement with KS?  I would think not since I presume a properly implemented async interface should make latency a non-issue?

Peter, how goes it with your NOS DAC????

OK, I switched to XP on other PC and it works just fine at 24/96 regardless output method.

PS
Q1 parameter at -4 sounds really bad on XP... Thin, flat, liveless, digital. I assume that dedicated server, just for music playback doesn't need any additional "latency corrections" or whatever Q1 is responsible for, only Peter knows. I prepared pure xp installation in nLite,  without most services and other "cr*p". It weighs only 100MB and is preoptimized. IMHO it is crucial NOT to install any other drivers but sound card. Once you install vga drivers you can forget about a decent sound. What I'm hearing now from my dedicated audio server is unbelieveable. XXHighEnd on w7 engine 3 or 4, doesn't play half as good as cMP². To be perfectly honest, everything else is really bad compared to cMP². Peter, keep working on "the timings"

Greets

Gettin' lost here: For singer songwriter vocalists, Eva Cassidy, Patty Griffin, Jackson Browne, Dylan, James Taylor  etc., its kernel streaming with 2x arc prediction: they have never sounded so good. But for classical, (Bach violin concertos, Ann-Sophie Mutter) turn off arc prediction for the kind of precision and separation between instruments offered by engine 3. For Rock and roll, dunno, don't really listen to it that much, but I'd think no AP would be better.  :wacko:   :o  :wacko:

Yes, i feel the same now (after many more hours). For piano pieces, i'm divided. Yesterday night I really enjoyed Chopin Etudes with KS.

.......and then, on the horizon , is special mode, whew..... :heat: But then, to have such quality and such choices, truly fucking amazing.

 Hey Telstar which recording of the Etudes are you listening to? Nelson Freire? Just wondering cause I haven't tried to "tune" in the piano yet. :)

Nikita Magaloff (philips), Etudes op.0 and op.25.

Thanks Telstar, I haven't heard that recording. With the Freire recording, which isn't that great, no AP is best.

One thing I noticed last night was the "depth" of the sound stage that kernel streaming has brought. 9y--5-02, engine 3, now sounds flat or horizontal compared to the 3 dimensional sound of kernel streaming. Whats is amazing to me is that the depth isn't about "placement" but rather about a harmonic richness that's lacking in engine 3. (Being new to "great audio" I really don't know how to describe this stuff!)

boleary,

When you mean the above, does it mean you use simple re-sampling without AP feature?

Ivo

Not so long ago I described this as "there is no such thing as depth", and the sound is just everywhere. So, it is (has become) difficult to pinpoint instruments in the depth direction. Whether this is (theoretically) good or not I'm not sure, but it makes you being inside of the music.

Hi Ivo. On the Freire recording I uncheck "double" which undoes all upsampling.

Dunno about "there is no such thing as depth". On vocals, especially, there's layers of richness that just weren't there before. It is GOOD, very, very GOOD! (Of course, to these ears on this system.....)

Boleary,

When AP was introduced it was another method of upsampling compared to the *regular* so that is why I asked. Actually, my listening experience (so far with engine#3) says that it is better to use upsampling. Music gets closer, it gets spatial and more dynamic compared to raw 16/44. I guess higher-end standalone CDP all use some kind of upsampling.
I am waiting when engine#4 will work with HiFace then I will see which one is better for me: engine#3 in QAP OR engine#4 in QAP.

Ivo

I agree Ivo. With engine 3 all music sounds better with AP. Engine 4 is where I find that classical or more complex music is better with all upsampling in XX turned off. Vocals or less complex music, such as Julian Bream and John Williams, Together and Together Again recordings, sound best with AP turned on (engine 4). Will be interested to hear what you find when you start using engine 4.

hey there Peter,

a quick question about the contents of a typical X3PB log I have here ( see below ). In my setting I have chosen the CH34 ( digital ) entry from those available, and the log seems to indicate that it found it OK, yet a following line indicates XXHE is using the CH1234 output, which as far as I understand, is the combined analogue and digital entry.

Is this just a quirk of the drivers perhaps? The output comes from the SPDIF, so in that regard everything seems to be working as expected.

thanks,

Russ

=======  SNIP   =========
-07 (Stream Status)
-09
Start KS here
Name wanted  : Juli@ Ch34 >> #esi_wave2  Number of KS devices found : 3
Filter found : \\?\esi#julia_01#5&69f9183&3&01#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\esi_wave1
Name attempt : Juli@ Ch12
Filter found : \\?\esi#julia_01#5&69f9183&3&01#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\esi_wave2
Name attempt : Juli@ Ch34 ** Found ** ** Succeeded ! **
Filter found : \\?\esi#julia_01#5&69f9183&3&01#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\esi_wave3
Name attempt : Juli@ Ch1234
No ambiguous devices found.
Filter used : \\?\esi#julia_01#5&69f9183&3&01#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\esi_wave3
-13
-14
-15
-16
Works (half of total buffer size) : 50000000
Half of total buffer size : 50000000
Is infinite : 50000000
Used : 3525
-17
-18
-19
-28
-29 (Start Playback)
Special Mode ! (which is actually WRONG)
Wait for file to arrive (1) : 141
Wait for file to arrive (1) : 168
Wait for file to arrive (1) : 141
=======  SNIP   =========

Russ, good observation !
The last line shown just shows the last line examined. It's actually old log data, while in a before version the iteration stopped once the filter to use was found. This was changed into showing them all for your information. *This* by itself is actually overruled now by the list of devices which just shows in XXHighEnd.

I removed that line.
(and all was fine for the actual choice !)

Peter