XXHighEnd

Best Sounding XHE ever!!!!!!!!! i think i have said this before but sorry is true.

Details!!!!!!!! Lots of them!!!!!!!!! maybe even too much of them!!!!!!!!! Marvelous sound!!!!!!
Say good bye to Ramdisk, No more clicks at all.


Thanks Peter!!!

Yes,
absolutely more musical than 0.9z-4-0. Better balanced in tonality and soundstage (more analogue-like).

However, playing  SC;SFS=10, I am getting a click every 4 seconds or so.
When I play Mixed;SFS=100 the playback is without clicks (but a little less 'present')

Cheers,
Eric

First impression: Best ever! :veryhappy: :veryhappy: :veryhappy:
Even my wife stopped ironing the cloths to listen to the music and I had to do the Ironing upstairs for her...

:rofl:

4th who downloaded and 4th who posted :)
I just can use adaptive mode because of my new asio driver. But no problem. I tested mixed (M), mixed contiguous (MC) and straight contiguous (SC) with sfs of 10.
I would say I like SC and M at a first impression. M is clearer. SC is more relaxed tube like. I don't know what to think about MC. It seems the closest to z2. Which in this case, is not good. M realy improves over z2. It is clearer and has the same realness that I like on z2. SC could be too smooth.
I ranc them like:
1.M (Best)
2.SC
3.MC (Worst)

I can not compare to z4 because I have a new installation and don't like to mess around with this ram allocation issue again. So it is out of my sight.
And BTW: Z4.1 starts flawless.

Good job Peter!

HA! Special Works! Didn't thought xx changed that much that I didn't tried it at all :) Very NICE!

After a reboot the clicks have disappeared !!??

This XXHE version really has slam and pace! (better than ever)
Try Oscar Peterson: "You Look Good To Me" from the album "We Get Requests".
This is the best I have ever heard.........

Cheers,
Eric

Checked the site earlier and saw 0.9z-4-1 posted so I think I was 3rd to download :).

Wow what a difference a really big difference - There was a hard edge to 4-0 so keeping the volume down was necessary. Not now this is a much smoother sounds more recessed more relaxed and more detail and subtlety. Usually more detail can be difficult in other ways but not with 4-1. I cannot believe how different it sounds. It sounds like the sweetest analogue sound.

I need to listen to more albums to get a real perspective on the change in bass. 4-0 had a strange way of sounding bass light but when there was deep bass on the album it was presented but with 4-1 sounds to be more bass throughout - not sure which sounds right yet. More hours of testing to come - yippee!!!
?
A question for Peter - have you "fixed" something or are you acting like a chef adjusting a balance of factors to get the right sound?. I always thought that once you get into bit perfect realm that was it - the sound would be perfect.  He He - I should know by now.

Scroobi

Paul

Good grief I am now working in special mode - never possible before. This is staggering just sounds brillllllliaaaaant. I just got to get back to listening to music with a massive massive smile on my face - the most brilliant dynamic detailed clear sound I have ever heard anywhere. Absolutely superb.

Scroobi

I love my first impressions. They are always wrong :) but it has a system :P So M is out. It seems to have realy problems with dynamics. It sounds flat, not pronounced. I should have listened more to MC. There are the dynamics but they can scare you off. Was not the first time.
New ranking:
1. MC
2. SC
3. M

4 permutations left :)

LOL Adrian !

Paul (and others), this is one of the things I didn't mention - although I implied something with changing the (digital) volume being faster even at the higher SFS settings - possibilities seem endless now. Or said differently : how to destroy this.
And again IOW ... HEADROOM.
Well, for something.

I never said it much in here, but one of the virtues of vinyl seems to be the headroom before things start sounding wrong. To me (as a personal observation without asking wives etc. etc.), it seems that this headroom now is there. It just feels like that.
Or as Eric said "more analogue". Oh, didn't we say this a 50 times by now ? well, maybe. But this time I explicitly agree. Maybe because I know Eric, maybe because I know his wife, and maybe because he judges through an NOS1.

And Adrian (Flecko), since when so YOU agree eh ? So, I'm touched.
Now I'm only waiting to disagree myself. It can happen you know. As, later, you can disagree. It can happen you know, and no problems with that. But honestly, this is too "off" to not bear some truth. I just had again a great listening evening myself. Whistling and jumping myself all the time. Playing Jimmy Smith, Keb' Mo' and some other stuff I know so well (ok, Deep Purple, sorry). There's just something.
Something which can't go wrong. Something like analogue.
But better.

I think.

My sound changed very much because of that asio driver. I can not tell how z4 sounds now. z2 and z4.1 are not so far apart. I should not post so quick. I do it always and always I wish I could have waited. Especially now, where sound changed so much from that asio driver. At the moment I think, it will need some time to figure it out. Z2 ist still competing, especially when it comes to coherence and dynamics. I also discovered scheme 2 :)

Hey Paul,

No, nothing fixed as such. But, since my theories told me that the RAMDisk should not be better, I have been trying from various angles to apply *other* theories which would give a decent sound without it.
Last Friday I finally managed, but since I really need 5 days at least to play sufficiently enough different types of music, let's be cautious. But really, I can't imagine what can go wrong the next couple of days.

Still, the more laid back (Eric ?) is strange to me. Especially because there seems to be more detail in the mean time. I am not used to that.
And for Eric : please read/apply the "advises" shown before the release notes. Reading your post in this topic you, didn't. It is all more to the extreme when you do, but *then* ... what do you think. And your wife of course.

Peter

By itself, correct. But I do it too. Or better : *when* I do, it has never been proven wrong. Even after a year I can read back how first impressions were right, by that time completely forgotten it myself.
So, IMO nothing wrong with it - honest to yourself and maybe even to others. Dangerous still.
But always good for a reference. At least that's why *I* post first impressions with explicit observations ... When nobody agrees I can always read it back later to see that I was right. And refer to it.

Or must we keep that in a private Word document ? :nea:

Hmm... The right things for me, turned out to be the last things that I found. I think I found every version since z2 better than z2 at their release and in the end I always returned to z2. So my statistic with first impressions is not so good unfortunatly.

All, please put problems in their own topic, ok ? Thanks !

Eric,


And this wasn't with 0.9z-4-0 ?

Thanks,
Peter

Peter, for sure it was 0.9z-4-1.
After reboot the problem was gone, so I cannot recreate it anymore.

BTW I did read the Release Notes (I always do). It says "When you're really ready to play maybe reboot for one time". So in my case the maybe in fact turned out to be needed. I wonder why the reboot is needed ot what is does.

Cheers,
Eric.

Haha Eric, that is not what I meant; I was referring to "and you didn't encounter those clicks in 0.9z-4-0 ?".
But if it's solved ... never mind.

But ...

There is nothing I can think of that may need a reboot to avoid clicks there. So for sure I wasn't referring to that (and reading release notes). This was just about the possible SFS size.
And to be complete : what I actually referred to was to quite explicitly not using a low SFS. Also not 100. But just the largest size possible in your system. So I just didn't understand (or wasn't waiting for) remarks about anything else than advised.
That you, or anyone - in the mean time, try other settings just the same is very OK of course, but then I expect results from that largest size at least. Not "12 sounds better than 100". If you'd tell me "12 sounds better than 350" (or whatever your maximum is), *then* I know more. Now I know nothing. So ... I just claim that the largest size is the best, and if that is not the case I really like to know !

That's all. :)
Peter

Dang Eric, you're right. I just saw it (by accident) on the analyser. So now there's ticks in between track parts again (also with your SFS of 100, but you won't notice it, unless by coincidence).
It looks like we can't have it all ?

Oh well ...
:aggressive:

Peter,
I have determined the Max SFS for the 3 different memory options in my setup.
Other parameter settings are: CR=0.5ms;Wallpaper=OFF;KeepLAN=ON.

m:MaxSFS=509
mc:MaxSFS=68
sc:MaxSFS=12

So far I did not hear abnomalies, just superb high quality music reproduction.
Michaela defines the sound as "like velvet", which I interpret as very positive.

Next step would be lowering the SFS and compare.
After that I like to determine the effect of changing Other parameter settings.

Cheers,
Eric.

Thank you Eric.

Stupid "question" :
Can't you get yourself a total of 8GB of memory ? With a not preferred trick I could "get you" some SFS of 170 SC, but getting more memory in your system really would be a better solution. And as I said in the release notes : 12GB would be the max utilizeable at this moment (actually SFS = 500 would be), so maybe make it 12, or 16 if 12 is not possible.
Or just 8, which seems enough to me. Well, at this moment.


PS: But something seems wrong;
Your sig is old because you already have more than 4GB, *or* your SFS of 500 was used with an output of 16 bits or something. Things don't combine. Especially not because your SC-SFS can be 12 only. What's wrong ?

Peter,
mobo is Gigabyte 965P-DS4 having 4 memory slots occupied by 4 x 1GB DDR2 (Kingston).
Any suggestions?

I use OctoFX-PeakExtnd-ArcPredict 352.8 playing a simple WAV track with the parameter settings as above. Volume=-6. 
#4 Engine; Adaptive 1024; No Appointment-Noting-RealTime; Q1=1; Q2=Q3=Q4=Q5=0.
That's it. The rest is a mystery (for me).

My sig is old because I DID remove RAMDisk completely. I will update it today.

Cheers,
Eric.

Haha, my sig is old too.

But I think I know what is happening ... (not good !)

With Mixed and the way it all works now, you will be using Virtual memory (in the paging file). :oops:
Never thoght of that ...

With Mixed Contiguous and Straight Contiguous that can't happen. But with Mixed it can, and this wasn't the case before.
At this moment I'm not sure how to tackle that (sense it, etc.), but it's REALLY not good ...

I must tell you (or all) honestly, that I tested it all, but as it turns out now, wrongly;
My W7 64 bit just recognizes the 8GB of memory, and there it goes 100% okay because of further "constructions";
My 32 bit Vista sees 4GB of memory, but I tweaked some stuff there. There too it goes 100% ok.
So, I should have tested without tweaks, and *then* I would have seen it was not okay at all.

Summarized, with 4GB of memory, and 500SFS you *will* be using 4GB - but maybe less when your tracks aren't that long.
Since you only have 4GB of memory, where's the OS ? well, it's just in memory, but your track will definitely be in the paging file.
This creates the exact oppositie of the intentions ...

Must edit some release notes ... :swoon:

Thanks for helping out.
Peter

First thing is, that since the asio driver I found out, that scheme 2 sounds now incredible good. The asio driver increased the dynamics and control and with scheme 2 it gets even better. Never before it sounded that good. I played around and think z2 is still better. It has more space between the instruments and every instrument has a teriffic dynamic and clearness. A single sound of a guitar string is an acoustical event. z4.1 MC is very close to z2 but in the end it doesn't gets there. The sound of z2 is in a way better than z4.1, like scheme 2 is better then scheme 3. So if you like "air" between the instruments and a flat sound, use scheme 3 and if you like "space" between the instruments and a dynamic sound use scheme 2.
A question btw: I optimised windows for background services, is that recomended? Using this setup and scheme 2, the computer gets slow like a snail. With scheme 3 the computer is a lot faster.

Thank you Adrian.

No, the "Background" setting is plain wrong, and you won't be able to reset it to default by normal means.
It can be reset though through the Registry. Tell me you want that and I'll tell you how (must dig it up).

Peter,
still experimenting, I disabled Paging (by settting the size of Virtual memory to =0) just to see what happens.
To my surprise .......I got the following results.

m:MaxSFS=511   (was 509)
mc:MaxSFS=107 ( was 68)
sc:MaxSFS=12    (was 12)

I am lost, but you will probable be able to understand and explain.
Cheers,
Eric.

Thanks Peter but I have made a system copy, so I can restore my windows. I realy liked z4.1 to be better, so sorry that I can not confirm my yesterdays opinion. But today I could hear a lot louder because it was not so late. Plus I was relaxed and not so exited by the new release. I have this "background" setting since today, maybe I have to check again.

After having a new windows again I rechecked but found it like before. The main reference with which I check is "Friday Night in San Francisco". It is nost the best record but I am sure most people have it. I listen to how the guitar strings sound, especially when there are single notes by one single guitar. I know the sound very well and that sound I know is reproduced best by z2 with scheme 2.

Maybe (to myself), maybe not ...

The whole problem is, *all* memory is virtual (read : not real). So that's where it starts.
Next, paging can't be shut off. You think you do, but you really can't. Not till some degree.
Then, the OS wants the whole of your memory to be in the paging file. Well, in the normal situation (you not shutting it off). This has reasons (never mind those for now).
Furthermore, you'll be forcing things with unknown results (well, for me at this moment) by actually allocating memory which physically is there, while the virtual "mapping" will always allow it. This will be your "M" situation.
What is more difficult to test (or lengthy) is that the "M" situation will only use the around second half of the original set SFS when the first half has been used. This means that you need to "run out" this first half just by consuming as many minutes of track-play which SFS=511 implies, and by heart this will be something like over 6 minutes for your 32/352.8 situation. But then it needs another 6 minutes to be able to load, meaning that your track must be 12 minutes long at least (but take 15 to be sure). At half of this track time things may start to go really wrong (crash, memory exception (error). Btw, the cpu graph will show you when track parts are loaded (long 100% spike for the Core concerned). BUT, if the memory is still available in the paging file, it will just keep in running ...

The "MC" situation is the one I don't get. However, it can be something I just don't think about, because just similar tricks are being used to get as far in the first place (where before this clearly wasn't possible by far).

Your SC situation only shows / prooves that you will have 4GB of memory only (and not more by accident without you knowing). However, it also seems to show that you "mangled" standard OS settings, because it's really too low (now). So, it's my guess that you may have turned off DEP (Data Execution Prevention) which really is related. It should be ON. What this can do to your reported now larger MC possibility is beyond me at this time, and will need extensive testing and research (knowing already that MS herself is far from really clear about this, which by itself maybe because they don't know themselves (bugs).

Remember, I can get an SC of 170 myself, and this is Vista, which really is far more difficult to get than for W7. This too depends on a dirty trick on knowing how the OS "behaves" (and what you won't find anywhere, not even here :)). But it may be in a next version, *if* important at all for the few who really need it, because what it really needs is just more memory. Done (cheaper than my attempts to not mangle your OS with negative results for normal useage).


All assumed that you rebooted before attempting a next memory type try (and don't hop over to e.g. MC right after trying M).

In any case, I'm glad that these things happen with explicit coorporation on finding out what is going on, because in the end I can only learn from it. If only -and this is important- people wouldn't just start copying suggestions from others, which really destroys and makes all unreliable - hence nothing I (thus XX) can depend on. The almost most clear example is Adrian's change, which is even a completely legit one. Still the as legit means to set it back won't end up in the default behaviour. It needs manually adjusting the Registry to get back.
Or a reinstall if you just don't know what happened (which is common of course).

Don't know anything better to say at this moment. But at some time I hope i can.
Peter

Thus far I've gotten the following SFS values;

M= 200
MC= 165
SC= 20

Spent the evening listening to SC. The sound really is incredible. Feels like I have a seat just inside the microphone with vocals. I also seem to have a larger range on the volume knob for this incredible sound: I don't have to play it so loud but I can go louder than ever before too. Also I found there's a big difference on my system when I reduced the buffer size from 512 to 48 with Q1 @ 1. Reducing the buffer size really gives the feeling of having a seat inside the microphone ( sounds dumb I know,  but can't think of a better way to describe it.) Lastly, I think I like SC @ 20 better than MC @ 165 but won't know for sure till I give MC a good listen. Thanks Peter!

(Help! Help! I'm tempted to turn on ramdisc, reduce it to a minimum size for XX and a few tracks of music, and see how it sounds......please stop me!)

Hi,

I briefly tried the latest version with the same settings as I used for 4-0 (removed RAMDISK) and I can confirm that this is the best version so far. The biggest difference is that the uncomfortable hardness of 4-0 is gone and traded places for a tonally richer, smoother and much better defined sound. The time sensation of the musical flow is the best I experienced yet. Dispite the many improvements not affecting XP, the end result is definitely a big step forward on my system.

Now let's see what prolonged listening and additional tweaking will bring!

regards, Coen

I played further with the asio driver and got special mode to work now even with z2. Until now, my comparison between z4.1 mc and z2 was done with adaptive mode. I still would prefere z2 special over z4.1 mc special because z4.1 mc has the same disadvantage as compared to z2 with adaptive. It sounds to soft and not so clear. Most intereseting thing for me, changing to mixed again and using the same buffer size (and asio settings) as with z2, suddenly z4.1 showed what I missed. It is even more clear and detailed than z2. And I hope this isn't the late night effect again but it seems to be realy better now. I would be so glad if I can confirm this tomorrow (I could count one up for my first impressions statistics ;)). I have a good feeling about this.
Would be interested what you think about scheme 2 instead scheme 3. It seems to me, it can reproduce the highs more accurate. In earlier versions this was maybe to much but now it sounds crisp and clear. Less jittery.
Good night!

Flecko

How did you make the Ploytec Asio driver of your Digital Interface to work with XXHEE, i think XXHE only works with KS and Wasapi

It is a windows asio driver. It also improves the sound of the media player. There is nothing to do to make it work with xxhe. You can use engine 3 and 4 as usual. Only catch is, that the driver does not official support the Tenor te7022l chip. So every time I turn off the digital interface, I have to install the driver again. But the sound let me forget about this inconvinience. It is the only way to get rid of the windows volume control. I hope there will be another sollution or a better driver from ploytec in the future.
What I learned is, that a spdif interface should always have some driver that doesn't use windows mixer. It would be interesting if Ar-t legato, empirical off ramp, or wavelength wavelink would work with the ploytec driver. If not, for example the legato that doesn't has its own driver would never sound as good as it can.

Hmm ... and FWIW ... I think you are doing the most strange things.

Aren't you always tweaking at the back end of things ?
Just well meant.

If there would be a sollution that fix the problem once and for all, I would do. I know there is when it is only about sound but there are some things holding me back. In the future I would like to be completely independend of a PC and OS. And there should be no possibility to tweak by myself, for my peace of mind.

Just my first impressions after only 1 hour listening to MC and I have to say my headache has been cured.  ;)

With z-4-0 I found it to be too "cutting" but the latest version has all the detail but doesn't hurt  :)

For me this is a big step forward, well done Peter.

Thank you Brian.


Which (IMO !) just is why that needed the RAMDisk as a smoothening factor BUT actually caused by the OS (W7 SP1). Well, "caused" is a big word, but (by now) I guess W7-SP1 is so much better that stupid XX couldn't "cope".

But problems are there to be solved eh ?
oh boy ...

Btw, I don't think many people tried without RAMDisk before a few days back, but before I really couldn't stand that, AT ALL.
Now I can, and it's even better. Thinks me.

With an OS DAC I also like z2 very much, and I didnt update on my studio pc.

Time to install more memory, at last :)

It is definitly worth a try.
BTW: I like your signature format and copied it, if you don't mind :)

Flecko, thanks for mentioning scheme 2 and mixed SFS (set my buffer to 1040)! It really sounds much better in my system than SC with scheme 3 or 2!! I'm curious of how much you have your SFS on? I share the same view that scheme 3 cannot reproduce highs accurately (at least not in my system). As a matter of fact this was driving me nuts ever since I listened to scheme 3... I've tried zillions of combinations with scheme 3 (different buffer, with different KS, with different SFS, with different clock res, etc, etc.), I just could not get the highs to sound right! Changing to scheme 2 with Mixed mode and KS: Special really changed this!!

Tonight I tested scheme 2 with both Mixed and MC on SFS 130. And at least in my system MC sounds better. A little (and I do mean little , as of almost unnoticable) bit sharper in the highs, but nothing that makes me uncomfortable. The detail and clarity in the bass trumps Mixed mode very clearly though. I've listenend almost 10 times to Corcovado on Oscar Peterson's We Get Requests. And they sound very much the same in the mids and the highs (really small difference), but in Mixed mode I could not hear every bass note that Ray Brown hits and I could follow every one of his bass notes in MC mode!!!

I had some almost crying moments when I played Autumn Leaves by Eric Clapton tonight!! And my heart started beating faster listening to Stranger on Earth by Lisa Ekdahl. God bless the power of Music (and XX, hehe)! :yahoo:

Hi Peter,

One of the best versions of XXHE that I have heard so far. The balance across all frequency range is amazing. However I felt that the highs in 0.9z-4-0 were a teeny weeny bit clearer. Maybe I need to optimise the settings.

Off with RamDisk.

Thanks for the lovely sound.

Arvind

Hi Peter,

in the release notes for 0.9z-4-1 you wrote:


Can you think of any reason why you couldn't append a PLAY function to the code that controls when the message box disappears? It would save the user from having to issue the Alt-P themselves. You could perhaps alter the wording to something like "Services are being shut down, and play will commence when message box disappears. DO NOT attempt manual PLAY before then"

Cheers,

Russ ( still fiddling with parameters ! )   

Now Playing: Herb Ellis - Ellis In Wonderland

Now, I'm trying to fine tune it! If only I had a way to make the sharp edges a little bit more round... When I listen to vocals and someone pronounces the SSSSssss it's a little bit shapr to my ears.

Maybe I need to play with the SFS...

But overall the sound is very good now. It seems like MC has the best of SC and Mixed.

Had another listen last night and was looking to find the max SFS for the different memory configurations and managed 120 with SC.  When I first listened to it I thought "Oh no, too much like z-4-0" but I gave it a little more time and then decided to get the Q1 setting as low as possible, for me this is 8 bits and just by doing this the edges were taken off (Q1 is back in the game).  Let me add I Like the bass now too the way it supports the whole experience is superb  :toomuch:

BUT who cares about all this tweaking when I can't stop my feet tapping, on a few occasions I was having difficulty sitting down as the urge to dance was so great (Any DJ with this player will be a sell-out success overnight!). This was followed by the urge to sing and join in and on two occasions I burst into tears.    :love:

My wife joined me on two occasions (both to bring me a cup of tea  :smile:) and she failed the "can you sit with your feet still" test on both occasions.

XXHighend has moved from the technical to the emotional plane wow, well done Peter I think we have our first candidate for version 1.0 status.   :soundsgood:

I use sfs=220 with mixed.
You could try an attenuator like jkeny suggested.

Hey there Russ,

Well, can you think of a reason that you applied "Do not start at all" ?
Deactivate that, and you'll have what you want (if I understand you correctly). But this *is* different. So, when playback starts automatically there is no time to let things "cool down", *might* that be what one wants (I am not sure myself, or not anymore).
But sure I feel what you mean, and it really won't take long anymore before I myself deactivate this button ... (waiting is ok, but waiting for nothing, no sounds, so coffee ? toilet maybe ? ... that's not it).

Peter

I may not be so much used to this myself (or listen too much to other things), but this time I put it in the Release Notes, most probably for a reason. But it is just true I guess ... I never sit in a chair listening, and I'm always wlking around doing things, cooking etc., and I can only finding myself whisteling throughout. I hear false voices, and next it appears my wife is humming. This can even be preceeded by a "oh no, not again those ever playing the same songs jazz players" after which I usually have to shut down and try something else she won't like anyway. I now can play what I like, what about that. :heat:
But the ever best test is and remains :

Our 12 year old -usually with headphones behind some game or TV- gets totally wild once the headphones are off. The degree of him getting wild (on the beat of the music) is just a great measure. If he doesn't move at all, something is seriously wrong. And sometimes it is. But not now. Now he needs ADHD medicine ...

Bonjour Pierre,

Well, Yes, I could do that, but I was interpreting your notes ...


... as being the preferred way to start playback with the new memory management. I shall try going back to previous way of letting things start automatically, and see if I can detect any meaningful differences between the procedures.

Ta :)

Russ

FYI ... it's hard for me at the moment to comment on improvements with this version. Reason being is that last week the chap who built my speakers visited and we decided to remove the integration of my subs when playing 2 channel, and discontinue the use of the parametric equalizer in the pre-processor. Net result is a completely difference sound reference and I'm slowly learning to come to terms with what I'm now hearing. Suffice to say it all sounds very much improved, and of immediate note is the tight controlled bass registers. More feedback to come as I appreciate the changes made. 

OK, I'm sitting writing with my laptop and 0.9z-4-1 playing in the background on my main system. I've literally just heard one track, but I listened to the same track with 0.9z-4-0 just beforehand. I'm using the parameters in Peter's signature for 0.9z-4-0 (i.e. Special, etc), and the identical parameters with 0.9z-4-1, but with SFS=500 and Mixed. All services are off, except LAN, which I need as I use a NAS (which I still like, even though some here don't)... and of course, no RAMDisk.

The difference here is night and day, with 0.9z-4-1 being very much superior. (Of course, 0.9z-4-0 would certainly sound better with RAMDisk, but I can't be bothered to reinstall RAMDisk, and in any case, I doubt it would come close to 0.9z-4-1.) I agree with most of the comments that have already been written in this thread relating to SQ. I will post again with my thoughts on what I would like more/less of. But right now, I'm finding it difficult to identify anything that I would change.






I totally concur.

Mani.

Haha, nice post. But my sig has not been adjusted by any means ! it's just old (from 4-0 somewhere).


But what's next ? all go to laptops ?

If we're quoting some superlatives anyway, this one jumped at me from someone who rather sends emails than posting in here (there are many more, but I really like this one especially) :

Indeed unthinkable that you could.  :swoon:

Are you going to explain what you did so different? Or is that going to be a secret. Which i will understand.

 :)

Totally secret. In any case it was no accident, and it had to be a REALLY working thing, because remember, I had RAMDisk theories ... and I want my theories to proove right. Just me ...

What should be the next step ?
Adjusting the software for little problems without adjusting SQ eh ? hmm ...

I just wanted to clarify that I'm posting on my laptop, and certainly not playing XX on my laptop!

[Remainder of post deleted]

Mani.

Well, after a short spell with Mixed, I'm back to Straight Contiguous. Mixed is very easy on the ear but there is a loss of 'focus' (a bit like using RAMDisk). Straight Contiguous brings this focus back and the bass becomes more tuneful - but as before, I end up just wanting more of this beautiful bass (with Mixed, I have no desire for extra bass).

SFS=500 in both cases.

Mani.

PS. I haven't tried MC... should I?

Reading the above made me think of this:


Now I'm not entirely sure of everything Peter means by "Headroom" but I think volume must have something to do with it. Back in the early days of 9z-2, I was pretty sure that most of the differences in SFS's I used for different recordings was due to the recording, so I advocated that the SFS "knob" be put on the face of the GUI so it could be quickly changed. It just didn't seem possible that it could be a set it and forget it setting.......boy was I wrong.

The amazing thing about 9z-4-1 is that using large SFS's the sweet spot of my volume control has  been significantly broadened, as a result I don't have to change the SFS depending on the recording; rather it is only with an adjustment of volume that I account for the differences in recordings. It seems that this has been made possible because all frequencies seem to have become more stable, present and smooth(??). Before, with 9z-2, as SFS was increased the music would flatten (unless you turned it up really loud!)

From my not at all technical perspective this is really a great achievment in XX, making using the program much simpler.

Did you tried scheme2 with mixed? scheme 3 sounds a little muddy compared to scheme2. In my system, mixed is still best sounding. I preceive the highs as more present with better resolution. Also all frequencies are more coherent.

I meant the general headroom "before things go wrong". Like it doesn't matter much what you dial in, it always goes ok, or at least isn't suddenly worse by a great margin. That's why I referred to vinyl ... this always sounds good (not thinking about other aspects).

Further to my latest post in the PurePower thread: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1445.msg16281;topicseen#msg16281, I've had a few thoughts about Special vs. Adaptive.

I have a question though: Is Special acting as some kind of 'filter', filtering out the 'edginess' from the sound? I ask this because my PP2000 unit in battery mode seems to be having a very similar affect on the sound. Could it therefore be possible that with Special, we are actually losing resolution? When in fact the root cause of the problem may be something else, e.g. mains supply?

Mani.

Most certainly NOT true. But it depends ...

When transients are very steep (and they are much steeper than you can imagine), any not so well designed DAC may overshoot up to its voltage rails. So, all was designed to let all fit (digital vs analogue domain), but the steep transient implies a higher analogue voltage than "flat" 1:1 conversion would tell. The result : clipping (on the PSU).

When we "upscale" in digital, this goes even further. Here a similar problem occurs when no digital headroom is there (the full maximum digital dynamic range is utilized), while the transient again urges for going up further in digital once some nice interpolation is used to inject more samples (upsampling). *Now* the problem will be that the digital headroom is exceeded, and something must be done about it.

Solution : lower the digital level before it can occur.
For XXHighEnd this means activating Peak Extenstion (together with Arc Prediction, which is this upscaling).


Beyond ? :nea:

(I'm in some mood ! haha)

my experience with adaptive and special mode is like that. Special sounds softer and with more 3D sound stage. Adaptive has a more powerfull sound with less resolution. Combining the sound of special and adaptive would be nice. The power and dynamic of adaptive combined with the resolution and 3D sound of special.

Exactly! I miss the edginess you're talking about. It's too smooth at times! Although the clarity, detail, resolution and speed is really much superior to my previous CD player (Audio Research CD5), it lacks the body, foundation and presence of the CD player... When xxhighend can do this, then we have xx 1.0 imho..

OK I have been listening to 4-1 since it was posted (literally) and it is such a massive improvement in my system it is difficult to understand how it was possible. Anyway there is no going back but I have to say there is one area where there is a question mark for me and that is the base. 4-0 was very dry (in my system) if there was deep base on a recording then it would be heard but otherwise not much happening "down there". I have to say 4-1 sounds a bit over lively and under damped. Is this my imagination? in terms of dryness somewhere between 4-0 and 4-1 would be better.

Is this heresy?

Well it is a small point because the quality of 4-1 is just sublime.

All the best

Paul C

I think Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773), had a nice way of putting it:


 ;)

Does everybody agree that my enlgish is better ?
haha

Btw Brian, sorry about the earlier response. I'm really not like that I guess. But that mood I was in ...


PS:
Is that the one from the couches ? :swoon:

 :offtopic:

I think this is close :seeyou:

:no:

Enlgish=English

I installed more memory so my total is 8gigs and my SFS settings are:

SC = 320
MC = 320
M = 500

I was moving towards SC as the one I liked the most but with the big SFS for mixed the tide is shifting to mixed.  Just spent the afternoon listening to mixed and it was a close call between the two and it was becoming difficult to split SC from MC so more listening required.  I used the Beatles song "Oh Darling" as the reference between settings and the difference was very easy to hear especially as Paul growls his way through the song.

Just want to say that I reluctantly installed z41 today; I've found the last few versions to be more or less similar provided I played with all the settings enough and I got very tired of all the buttons and options and settings. Felt like a dog chasing his tail :fool:. But I thought I would give one more try with the new one anyway.

Well, well, well, what do you know. IT IS THE BEST XXHE VERSION I HAVE HEARD YET! :grin:

Analog is indeed the word. I have not changed any settings yet.  I have no intention. Great Job Peter!
 :P Maybe you should offer a streamlined version of z41 without
so many settings and options that would be more 'accessible' and user-friendly.

Also this was the first version for me to install without any problems. Another big plus!

Now please please please make this version 1.0 and call it a day! You've earned it! :drinks:

I'm having troubles finding the best sound from this version, or at least one that does better than z3 on my dedicated pc.

So far z3 with:
on ramdisk (copy to xxhe enabled)
scheme3
SFS 200mb
scheme3

sounds cleaner and more "right" than z4.1 with:
on SSC (copy to xxhe enabled)
scheme3
SFS 200mb (cant make it higher)
MC (mixed only sounded horrible, SC cant do 200mb unless i raise ram and/or remove the ramdisk but then i cant compare AB)
clock 1ms

I CANNOT disable services or it shuts down console.jp and i get no sound at all. So I think that for systems with much more memory and no layer something like 500mb SC and all services down, z4.1 CAN sound better.

Edit: the differences are subtle, both my and my SO cant say what's different but we both prefer the older version.

Hi Telstar,

I know it's a bit complicated, but you should leave the RAMDisk out as the first thing ...
Don't call that proper A-B or something (for this version). The RAMDisk makes it worse.
SSD The same, though YMMV here.

On Console.jp or anything ... read the Release Notes (as always :)). Exclude it. Well, assumed that's possible.

You are saying that the fact that ramdisk software is running makes z4.1 (installed somewhere else) sound worse?

Will put it on HDD - yes this i have to try.

Yes, that is what I say. I myself had it just sitting there, but didn't use it anymore. Still, it couldn't be taken out (bad sound). Now (4-1) it can, and it makes the sound better as ever before.

Peter

Peter didn't you meant OS on HDD and XX on HDD instead of OS on SSD and XX on HDD

Telstar if i am right you have the OS on SSD?

 :)

Over all, I am very happy with 0.9z-4-1.

On a majority of albums it sounds "just perfect". Extremely 3D, detailed and coherent from bass to treble. [Also a factor of the NOS1 of course!]

But on some albums* I note a slight "forwardness" in the upper midrange. Maybe it's because I play them very loud. Or maybe I can tweak it away with some other settings? (See my signature). Or maybe it is the recording itself...

-At the moment I dont use RAM-disk for practical reasons - too much hasle. XX is running on a SS disk.

*EXAMPLE: Keith Jarrett At The Blue Note/The Complete Recordings CD (The 2 Sunday CDs).

I myself am completely satisfied with

- SFS = 240 (SC)
- Soundcard Buffer = 512 (set it there, meaning not (only) in XX as Device Buffer Size !)
- Latency = 128 samples

Also, I hopped back to "just start" (meaning : inactivate Do not start at all). Much more convenient, and it shouldn't matter much anymore.


Side note :

Day before yesterday my wife complained it was all too loud. Well, according to the set digital volume it was the other way around. -33dBFS while more normal would be -25.5 / -24. Of course got a fight over it, and after playing a coule of tracks of Van Morrison (including the fameous Gloria) - and which music at last she liked, I turned that off again and went back to whatever ambient. Turned vM off because of being in a bad mood, but also it souned way (way) too fresh. Too old stuff I guess(ed !).
Next received the message that my stupid ambient sounded distorted as well. Yeah yeah, that's because of the high transients in there.
Yesterday after starting out with some "easy" stuff again, I didn't like it myself. Put on L.A. Woman, because it always works. Good memories about that as well. Sh*t, sounded like, well, sh*t.
Then I checked my settings and found some very "controversial" latency vs. soundcard buffer settings ... 32 vs 2048. Totally inconsistent within itself (I always thing the both should go along for "length"), and I recalled I did that for test purposes on Sunday.
Set all back to normal (see above), and all sounded great again.

I only want to say : you can totally destroy the music by making these settings "inconsistent". Of course 32 samples ( @ 32/352.8 ) is very low anyway, but things just have to "fit".
Listened to Riders in the Storm as a last track from L.A.W. and went along with all so great.


One other thing for you Pedal : This all sounds so normal now, that I have to rejudge my Deep Purple "only a few sound good" earlier statement. This "rock" now suddenly all works, and I can't see why or how I before had problems with some. Try it ! I played many of the the past weeks, even including newer. It occurred to me (only now :wacko:) that DP has gone the direction of Trans-Siberian Orchestra at some stage. Oh, maybe you don't know that ... TSO = Symphonic Rock like, spurs of ELO hence classically but towards opera based but turned into pure rock, actually "massive". Massive but very intelligent. And strange, because if you want to play something of them it has to be Christmas time. They (almost) don't do other things on albums. Go figure. Btw, upcoming 26th they perform in Amsterdam. ;)

Ok, I'll stop now.
Peter

I also find schemes 1 and 2 better than scheme 3 ever since I switched to special mode. Scheme 3 definately puts out that "too forward" sound here.

Yes, and I will never put on a spinning disc because of the noise.

XX version 0.9z-4-1: HOME AT LAST

Today I have reached an all-time-high sound quality, after adopting the settings of Peter, as mentioned in above post.

Yesterday I was “quite” happy, but noticed a slightly “forwardness” in the upper midrange, making some (but not all) piano recordings a little bit unpleasant at high playback levels. (I do play louder than most people, which make any tendency of hardness rather annoying). 

Today I changed my setting to:
KS MODE: Special
Device Buffer size: 512
Julia soundcard latency: 512
Processor Core Appointment Scheme = Scheme-2
Player Prio: Low
Thread Prio: Real Time
Clock: 15ms
Services and OSD: Nothing
SFS: 240
Memory Organization: Straight Contiguous
Q1: 3 (128 latency)
Q2-Q5: 0

Music on SATA II HD. XX running on SSD. RAMdisk not in use at the moment.

Playback: PeakExtend + Arc Prediction x8
(Attended/unattended doesn’t make much difference).
Last but not least: NOS1 DAC.

-----------

The improvements are quite astonishing. First of all, the “hardness” heard on Keith Jarrett Trio/Live at Blue Note CD 5, disappeared. It was replaced with the piano’s true “wooden” tone.

Playing track #05 La Valse Bleue, made my jaw drop to the floor when the drum kit materialized in my living room. Extremely deep and tight bass, explosive dynamics and dry, but pure treble. At that very moment my year long vinyl itch got killed!

Next, I put on Patricia Barber/The Cole Porter Mix (CD rip). Another surprise, compared with listening to it a couple of days ago: Now, listening to Patricia Barber has become interesting(!). Her voice is simply more involving. A slight veil has been lifted from her voice, making it more emotional.

Another frequent test album is Brian Bromberg/Wood, an audiophile trio jazz recording from 2001. The opening track 01-The Saga of Harrison Crabfeathers has a very demanding treble. The piano is recorded relatively “alive”, but it is still OK (very OK!)  as long as your system doesn’t emphasize the treble. Today there was no hardness at all, only the sound of a true and believable piano.

Finally I pulled out an old CD favorite from 1989: Blue Nile – Hats. The opening track #01-Over The Hillside is very well recorded. But with the previous settings the treble was slightly colored, reminding my about “early digital”. After changing to present settings however, the treble became pure again. Listening to this track after so many years was totally FUN. I played it 4 times in a row! At the very end of the track there is a cymbal playing, and now I can better hear its genuine “copper” sound. [It even made me google the metal alloy of typical cymbals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymbal_alloys) The XX/NOS1 can do that to you!]

---------  

The “problem” with choosing the settings of XX is that most users have different PCs. So maybe there are no universal settings for everybody? Also those without NOS1 or modified Julia soundcard, might need other settings for latency(?)
Nevertheless I urge you to try the above mentioned settings. Or make them your starting point for experiments.

BTW: I have a new PC with a fast quad core processor. All software running on a fast SSD. Music on SATA II HD.


EDIT/Postscript: Woke up this morning and still could "feel" (remember) yesterday's sonic impact of the drum solo on La Valse Bleue! (During my 30years of Hi-Fi madness, perhaps 10 listening experiences from my own/others systems have made lasting impressing. Fex. I still remember, my first listen to a friends highend system at age 15, as it was yesterday).

Great report Pedal, thanks !

I've been experimenting a bit with Scheme-2 but or I didn't hear the difference much, or I thought : what the heck, I'm used to Scheme-3, so let's stick to that.

Next I was working on the software, found a few (for now really unimportant) bugs, BUT, reasoned out that Scheme-1 would be the best. So, I used that for the past couple of days. Well ...

It gives me a clear change to the SQ. But also it emphasizes the highs in a sort of snappy way which ... I don't know ... is at micro level too squary or something. Just too much or so. Too much pronounced. Taking away the colour. But maybe also better. Somehow. But now again something is not up to it ?

So after two (maybe it was three) days of it I went back to Scheme-3. More bass. All fits again. Good balance. Nothing to complain about.
Right now listen to Mayall's "Blues for the Lost Days". Plainly superb. Sorry to say it myself.

But I also have changed a few other things to the software. :grazy:

And onnnnn this mater ... This time I took some serious time to get myself a new "PC". So, for people orienting on a new one, maybe wait a little. I did not order it myself yet, but it should contain everything and all for, well, a new stratgy. It will set you back for some 1300 euros for a mobo/processor alone, but then you'll have something which ... nobody has. Promise !
If now only my theories work ...

Peter


PS: A first glance of it will be in 0.9z-5.

goood`n`cooool .....:)

Peter

You said, "I took some serious time to get myself a new "PC". So, for people orienting on a new one, maybe wait a little"

Whenever you are silent for a few days we know you are deep into something new!

Waiting with interest!

Frank

 :o :no:  :swoon:

Is that possible? (Yes i guess) in order to get 8 GB i have been looking around a bit last day's but these prices i did not see.
 
 :veryhappy: :goodjob:

Does it sounds like an Intel Sandy Bridge i7-2600 series processor is included?

I recently bought a new PC already so I'd rather wait for a more user friendly and stable player and not spending another 1.300 Euro...

Everybody seems very happy with the sound already (me included) and therefore other things need an update first...?

I still have problems with those Hotkey commands but I guess I am the only one?

Bert

So let me get this straight - my two Zalman TNN300 PCs with top notch components are defunct already? You know, I think this hobby is faster-paced than something like Formula One! And probably just as expensive, relatively speaking.

Anyway, I'm sitting in my office right now listening to the NOS1 connected directly to my old Rotel RHB-10 power amp feeding a pair of 'small' Quad 2805 speakers - while my main room is being finished off. I'm getting a very, very nice sound indeed (with Peter's latest settings). My usual 'criticism' remains though - totally gorgeous bass, but just not enough of it! I'm not sure how I could improve the rest of the sound...

Just for fun, I attach a photo of how out of place the 'standard' NOS1 looks in my office. But I should be getting a brand new, 'off-white' coloured NOS1 for my office system... just as soon as Peter stops taking computer audio to even higher levels. I know, some people just have their priorities all wrong.

Mani.

:)

Hahaha, let's say you can save this money each half year of waiting for that. I won't say that you'll get rich over that, but eventually it will get you a new car.

:)

I want an exclusivity clause for my 'white sheep'.

Mani.

At least somebody seems to have fun...

That's a lovely white sheep, wish I could afford any color sheep myself. I guess I'll double the  :drinks: instead. That should should double my listening pleasure. I'm sure even a white sheep can't do that.

Hey Pedal.

Thanks for your specifics as to listening tests and pleasures. Listing that kind of detail makes opinions so much more useful, especially if one has some of the albums, which I do.

I have a different one of the Jarrett Blue Note recordings. The one with "Autumn Leaves" and "Days of Wine and Roses." The last 10 minutes or so (it's 26" total) of "Autumn Leaves," has some great sounding percussion. Bass, drum kit and eventually the piano comes back in and is basically a one note rhythm machine. The whole section is mesmerizing and the cymbals in particular (at times) have different colors (they must be different cymbals since they're located differently in the sound stage too--I'm no cymbals expert though) than usual. At times they sound almost like bells.

I also have the Patricia Barber you mentioned. I'll have to give it a listen. And speaking of her, some of her earlier recordings are wonderful and very well recorded. "Distortion of Love," comes to mind and the one after that; I can't remember the name.

Chris

Yep, that'll do it, I'm sure. I've recently gotten into the habit of listening to music (streamed wirelessly to my iPhone with cheap headphones) early in the morning on weekends, while I'm still in bed. I just enjoy these short 15-20 minute sessions so much. Nothing to do with SQ whatsoever, but everything to do with my relaxed state of mind, I suspect.


Hi Bert,

Do you find XX unstable? I've had absolutely no problems whatsoever... apart from the ticks at the beginning of tracks. As for usability, I think XX is actually OK. I mean, compared to something like RME's TotalMix software, XX is a walk in the park. But I can imagine how daunting it must be for someone who's not used to it.

€1300 for a mobo and processor is a lot, of course. But if it leads to a dramatic improvement in SQ, I'll be signing up for one.

Mani.

Nice system Mani and the white one looks good, but did you consider painting everything BLUE? This would of course ensure total musical coherence. :seeyou:

Not with a NOS1 they don't. The more I listen to the NOS1, the more I think a pair of Quad electrostatics are a great match for it - are coherent, act as a point-source and are ultra, ultra-fast.


Haha.

I like the blue colour - it matches the curtains in my main room perfectly. But it's an interesting colour for Peter to have chosen, no?

Mani.

I'm watching the multi core discussions with interest. I think Peter's demand for processors is out stripping Moore’s law :), we were fine with 2 cores 18 months ago now we might need 24, zikes !  :wacko:

Still if that’s where the sound is going I'll be signing up too, I'm glad I put off upgrading for now.

Nick.

Don't tell Bert, but I'm leaning in this direction also, I need to find a pair of ESL57s/63s


I have found the answer Mani :thankyou:

:swoon:

Hi, i can´t hear difference from model z-4 to z-2, but i can only use wasapi..... i´m playing via a asus laptop with realtek high def. audio card via optical to the dac.
i think my card is not ks compatible... but in wasapi the sound is very good.
my question is if you see a big difference between engine 3 and engine 4 since i can´t chosse engine 4.... :((((

I think the general feeling among most users is that Engine 4 is a much more pleasing and better sound than engine 3, though there do seem to be a few users who prefer the "sharper" sound of engine 3.

tks boleary. what would be a nice soundcard for my laptop to use ks engine4????

Geeze, I never saw your post until now. I used a Hiface and a JKenny modified Hiface as an interface between my laptop and my old DAC. Both worked well with kernel streaming. The modified JKenny is a liitle more than twice the price of the standard Hiface. I thought it was worth it.

Hi Fellow XXHighenders,  :sign0144qp7:
the last few weeks, I'm a "believer" like you all here. I started my listening to WAV files since3 december 2010 via Foobar 2000, since it was recommended by the supplier om my new HTPC. I was a happy listener, because with this software this PC/Soundcard sounded a lot better than my old and loyal Meridian 588 Player (Price in 2002: Euro 3200,= or so) But, I bought a dedicated HTPC because my good friend Johan is a true XXHe-believer since the stone-age. I listened to the progress of XXHe since many years and with the release of 0.9 Z4-1 it was clear to me, that it was a good product, albeit a bit ugly and rather complicated and tweaky to use.
But, if it was better on my PC than Foobar? Since my pal didn't want to compare it with Foobar on his system, the only way to find out was to try it myself. Till then, XXHe and it followers seemed to me like a sort of cultus, following a Guru, who spoke in tongues   :innocent:
Well, trying XXHe was not thàt simple for me. I had all kinds of trouble in installing XXHe and making it work properly. Screens full of warning messages in some sort of computerlanguage and all   :heat:
But now, TADA!: Yes, it's working all right. All my settings of XXHe are written below. The SQ is outstanding. Especially with live recordings from classical -, jazz - and other sorts of instrumental music the soundstage is livelike. Applause and yelling from the public is allmost like real. All the fine details-in-the-details. The cymbals: finally like real. With 16 Bits source. The only (small) remark: I have sometimes the illusion, that some extra "warmth" in the mix would be nice. Especially with some Pop and Rockmusic this is noticeable. Or is it that the recordings are lousy? My Magnepans are not that "bassy" sounding, but if a recording has real low frequencies (like Mussorgsky's Pictures by Jean Guillou) The drinking glasses are walking out of the cupboard. Perhaps I have to try some other settings here and there. Any suggestions?

Haha, what a nice story ! well,
:welcome: !

Ok, I must say that it is not completey clear how you want to combine "more warmth" with "less sub" (or something which makes your glasses stay in place), but what I notice from your current settings is an inconsistency in the Mode you use (Special) and its intentions (ultra low latency), while in the mean time you hardly won't be able to go higher on the latency for Special Mode. I don't say it is "impossible" (because allowed), but it's not really made for it. So I would say : if something incurs for these higher settings, better use Adaptive Mode. Not saying either that this will sound better, but at least that is made for higher latency. Btw, Normal Mode is for "normal" Latency which is relatively "high" (all still adjustbable).


With the upcoming 0.9z-5 I tried to improve on "messages" during the install and first playback attempt. So let's see what comes from that. Too late for you, but hopefully more comfortable for others.

Thanks for the story,
Peter


Edit : PS : Yes, applause is one of the best things to listen for, to catch almost all the qualities of sound in one go ...  :)

Hello Peter,
Thanks for your advices, I wil try them out asap.
Of course I like real low frequencies. What I mean with warmth is: low mids (or hig bass) It is a very subtile thing and perhaps something personal: I have Planars, so they have no "box-like" sound, for they are not "boxes". In some recordings (perhaps (almost certainly..) monitored on "boxes"), some soundtechnicians will compensate this. This will have the effect on my speakers that the sound will be slightly "lean"
For this sort of recordings or other dull recordings (mostly Pop/Rock) I sometimes use my Aural Exciter Aphex 204. It ads some 2th harmonics to the bass sound, thus "thickens" it. I could also do that with the high frequencies. You may find it a horrific thing for high-end use, but it has the effect, that sounds of drums and cymbals, the s-sounds from voices will appear a bit apart from the recording. So it ads room for them. You can hear them better in the mix. It makes the sound less dull in a subtle manner. BTW: this apparatus is used in soundrecording studios since the seventies.

BTW Peter, my Latency checker reads 162 Microsec. max during UnAttended playing. Is this low enough? Or can it still be lower with other settings? Which? Thanks in advance.

I always found this quite unreliable. So, no real thoughts on it.
Notice that it can also get *lower* (for some) when playback starts ...

Nice about that exciter. Well, as long as it's not a modern digital one ... haha.