XXHighEnd

Congrats Peter! This was the xxhighend version that I was waiting for! No more rebooting all the time and other inconsistency problems.. even with my laptop!

The sound is amazing and I hear so much more into the recordings= much more music!

I hear layers that were hidden or clouded before but now it's there!

Thanks so much and I already can't wait for the next version!!

Big congratulation Peter! The new version responds very fast. Sound seems to be very good. Just the first impression but I am realy happy about this version!

Hi Peter,

A few words to say how much I am pleased with the sound of your software :-) I was already very happy with the results from the previous version, but this one is a new summit !

I tried the "Minimise OS" with the laptop... Ha ha ! I had to plug a mouse to revert it, since the touch pad was not working ;-) I normally connect to my laptop (with the lid close) through thight VNC (from my desktop) and I don't know how to indicate I still want the service and process alive ;-)... I am waiting to get an Ipad to shutdown the noisy desktop and stay in my listening chair.

Still a fantastic job you do... I don't know how you can build DACs, debug, make a new version, post in Computer Audiophile as well as here - are you an extraterrestrial octopus ?

This reminds me of a song "The Messiah Will Come Again" :-)

Kind regards,

Alain

Thank you for your kind words Alain. I think I can only do things at the same time virtually. This means that I'm too late with everything always.

Yea, sorry about that laptop thing, but as said (Release Notes) really not made for that yet; I have a "laptop version" running for several weeks (regarding these anomalies, never tested SQ), but it will really take another day of testing and trialling. And for Adrian (Flecko) : at least I got the WiFi stuff "derived" in there (many hours of initial work). And as you will have seen, de button for that is still grayed out.

<cite>I am waiting to get an Ipad to shutdown the noisy desktop and stay in my listening chair.</cite>

Barstool man, barstool.

But the iPad is the typicle example of we can't do all at the same time. Should be a commercial thing, but I rather have SQ allright first. Well, nothing unusual.

Thank you too Adrian. You are always special ! :yes:

... as is SlickenSmooth. Well, who is not.

Brings me to Gerard who initially started this topic in here as finally the first one (even after waiting a full day he still was the first one, but Gerard, aren't you with all ?) ...

... but what happened to this post ? (thus the whole topic)

This dumbo (me) deleted that yesterday accidentally. Was tired and did not want to rewrite.

Never mind...  :)

Peter
 :) You did it , it sounds great more 3D
low more resolution and defined and more nature sound
and I was happy with older version but this one

Thank you for your gift and work to bring music with your program
friendly regards
Henri

Hey guys,

Has anyone compared SQ between Z6 unattended and Z6 unattended with Minimize OS = ON?

The PC where my Z6 runs is used also by others for other tasks, so wondering if on daily basis going without Minimize OS is sufficient. At lest my observation show that number of services, processes left in RAM is very similar in both cases.

Ivo

Hi Ivo (not wanting to intercept other one's ideas about this),

Why don't you use your ears ? :yes:

But more importantly : did you try to do your normal work with the OS Minimized ?
Chances are fair it will work out of the box you know ...

Peter

Peter,

No. Have not tried. Will do so tonight as well as will compare SQ in both cases. Just wanted to elicit some info from others who might done so already.

Ivo

Ah, you work at night ?

haha.

Just curious if anyone besides Peter compared 9-6 W7 sp1 to 9-6 Vanilla W7 before redoing their OS. If so, what were the differences (again not including Peter)?

I'm curious because there doesn't seem to have been an investigation or explanation. We've been playing musical chairs with OS's for quite some time here, and I'm wondering if W7 might just be the flavor of the day.

It seems like it would be good if someone investigated this thoroughly--not Peter though. I would volunteer but I'm afraid my system is not resolving enough, plus I don't own a NOS1.

I exclude Peter from all this because I think we need at least one system other than his to show positive results for W7 Vanilla over other W7s.

Of course if someone already has done an in depth comparison, please post a link, as I've missed the post.

-Chris

Been listening to the new zo.9-6 and am floored again by XXHE.  The last version I was using before 9-6 was 9z-52, with Win7 sp1 and all security updates installed, I wasn't sure it was as good as the way previous version of xxhe I used with my Vista install.

But but xxhe zo9-6 is excelente! (along with the fact I took off sp1 & all updates... except for 2 windows security updates that win7 doesn't seem to want to let go of???_) The balance of the system tonally by bringing back fantastic drums and the focus & clarity of everything while bringing a huge soundstage front to rear along with a reduction in unwanted distortion...  it all sounds awesome to me.  I'm trying to use all the "best" settings.

Hi Peter,

I upgraded with some minor issues to this latest version of XXhighend. The difference with the version I had (think it was 9.4) was amazing. Much more information and a huge increase in SPACE...
However, playing a bit with some different settings (still new at XXhighend) , a large difference in musicality of the sound was noticable. Sometimes a piano sounded as a piano, some times as an artificial instrument. Violins have the same critical sensitivity to the settings.

When I look in this forum, many people have the (for them) optimized settings in their signature. However, not all will have a NOS dac and many who have it are already on USB.

So my questions to this community:

-> is there somewhere in this gigantic pile of information in this forum a clear overview what the sound signature of each XXhighend setting is?

-> what would be the resulting most musical setting for XXhighend within the new version, NOT having yet access to the USB option?

For others : It is not all that obvious, but Bigear owns an NOS1.
(maybe you could put your data in your sig Quint; at first I myself didn't even recognize it was you ...)

I don't know my own settings from back then anymore, but they were quite illogical because they came from boleary who by accident forgot to adjust something - but which worked out very well (for me). Maybe boleary still knows. There were even a couple of posts about this.

But all is moot, since you indeed ask about the settings with 0.9z-6. Try boleary's (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?action=profile;u=489) again. He usually is quite right IMO.

Peter

Thanks, Bigear, Peter but especially Boleary!
Those settings make a big difference!
(Core appointment 3, straight cont. and time 2.5 ms)
Now I understand why everybody is so positive! :)

I also noticed that it takes a little searching to find the sweet spot and I also took acoustical instuments as a reference.

Dispite having no NOS1, I much prefer the sound of Arc Prediction (4X on 44.1 material) over the DSP filtering on 09-z52 and 09-z6. This is not a subtle difference; with AP the instruments regain their natural timbre, wholeness and dynamics. Ordinary soundcard filtering is a joke, typical digital leanness with associated HF 'detail'. Reverting back is no option, not even with XX in control.

Key for exellent sound on my system is to NOT enable the Peak Extend feature when using AP. Even when level matched it is clear that the peak extend introduces a rougher, dryer and less relaxing sound.

I've not yet turned all the relevant wheels on XX so maybe there is even more to be yielded form 09v6.

Allready a happy user of v6,

regards, Coen

Ooops,

I just noticed the peak extend thread  :wacko:...

Haha.

No worries Coen. The Peak Extend thing is not measureable by normal audio in-band frequencies - which doesn't tell it isn't audible. Only extremes show it, and although that not being about audio (as no test signal is really), I really prefer listening to something which looks right all over. The transients involved, however, sure do occur in audio. But since this is about 1 sample long (ok, short) transients (going from 0V to 2V (with)in 1/44000 of a second, this shouldn't be much audible. But still ...
... When we at last can measure something which doesn't look the best, we better comply to the better.

My view of course,
Peter

Thanks guys. I wish I could say I knew what I was doing to get those settings but I'm afraid its just luck and lots of listening/trial and error. What's great about this whole XX experience though is the shared experience/knowledge of the members. Its really quite amazing when you think about all the voices that have contributed to Peter's incredible (or should I say incredible Peter's...) project.

This morning I´ve tried the boleary settings and I´m amazed, just a little difference with his settings, my Q1 must be 7 to maintain 96 instead of his Q1,6. The sound is fantastic with an improvement over my settings in soundstage, smoothness and bass precision. I´ll keep listening but if continues to sound as good as now I´ll change my signature. Thanks boleary!!

Thanks Peter and Boleary, the setting are very helpfull for a XXhighend newcomer like me. I tried them last night and they sounded very good indeed.  A couple of observations:

I noticed that the whole spacial image appeared to be more forward then with my previous settings. Any idea what button would influence that?

Very detailed and life like voices, but maybe a little bit dry sounding. I have the impression that the memory mode choosen (mixed, mixed continues, Straight) is a.o. influencing that?

Really impressive dynamics and bass


Any inputs?

- Quint

Hey Quint, play with the Split File Size (SFS) setting. Reducing it will give a sharper less rounded sound, increasing the opposite. However, if you are using Z6 this may not work. What version of Windows are you using?

Hi Boleary, thanks for the info. I will try that button...
I'm using W7 home edition now

That's 32 bit and not 64?

it's a 64 bit edition. Has that any impact on the sound?

Well, i guess theoretically it should have an impact because you should be able to run higher SFS settings with the 64 bit version, if you have more than 3 gigs of memory. However, some "64 bit" folks are having problems with the SFS settings in the SC (Straight Contiguious ) mode. See: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1804.msg18343#msg18343

I don't see how this is related to the 64 bit OS ...

Statistics tell me something like 90% (if not much more) uses 64 bit, and 2 people have problems with the Privileges thing. 2 out of I don't know how many. They are bound to fall in the 64 bit category.

:)

Hi Peter, I guess what I was thinking in response to Bigear's question about whether a 64 bit OS impacts the sound, was that with a 64 bit OS one can generally use higher SFS's (more memory) and that highers SFS's are "generally" better sounding. Even with Z6 I am experiencing changes in SQ with changes in SFS after minimizing the OS.

Maybe I've been prefacing my listening sessions with too much herbal inhalation...... :) Though Z6  locks engine 3 into memory, am I the only one experiencing changes in SQ when changing SFS? (and not clearing Engine 3 from memory prior to changing the SFS) Hope this makes sense  :wacko:

let me just say one more time that Z6 is the VERY BEST iteration of XX. The balance is just unbelievable, no more "forward" females! But that's probably not a good thing in the non-audio world  :)

Sure. But I was referring to this :


and not to the SQ because of SFS or possibly something else.

Hi,

 If short then how the effect size of the SFS on the sound quality?

Cool test for Your system: http://www.project-sam.com/