XXHighEnd

I would be interested in the experience of others. I am currently running with SFS=20. However, until recently I was running with SFS=430 and the reason was that the sound was edgy and I used SFS=430 to "smooth" the sound.

Now that the sound quality is sorted out (see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2299.0) I find that SFS=20 sounds better but probably not by that much.

So the question - do others find that when everything is working correctly smaller SFS (and related Q1 settings) are better. So a smaller buffer is better provided that everything is working correctly?

Paul

I went away from an SFS setting of 430 a while ago and nowadays choose between either 2 or 60. With my regular setup it tends to be 60, just to take a slight edge off the sound. If I replace the anti-cables with other LS/IC cables or bypass the AC regenerator, I tend to switch to 2 because the sound is a bit too dull otherwise.

Mani.

I was using also SFS 2, 60, 320 and 430. SFS 2 was my preferred one with the previous 0.9z-6 version but now I use SFS 60 for the best SQ. The sound is less dry than with 2 and it is also very detailed. I have to say however that before I was using the WD5003ABYX as Playback Drive the sound at 60 was a little dull and softer. Now with this hdd I find it perfect at SFS 60. I use the WD5003ABYX externally powered and I connect it directly to the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCI Express Card. I also use PeakExtend ON. All of these things together are what make a sound so good.

Juan

Any SFS setting higher than 10 here causes the music to sound muffled. I usually just leave it at 2, though once in a while I set it a bit higher. Here the music sounds so frickin' natural and not hard edged at these low settings. Am pretty sure that unplugging all other drives is part of the reason. For example, everytime I forget to unpluug the optical drive after ripping, it always sound hard edged at a low SFS setting.

Hey Boleary - thanks very useful I had forgotten to unplug my CD drive which I have now just done. So now I can run at lower SFS settings generally SFS=10 is now best but lower for good recordings. So thanks that is another step forward.

Paul

I haven't played with sfs since the latest version, but I agree with Booleary on the lower settings. Somehow the sweetspot in my system seems to be 8. Neither lower nor higher reaps any benefits (that is my view of course).

I keep usb free of devices ánd no smps adapters in the powerrail for optimum sq. The adapters rob the low end and natural midsof the sound.

Regards, Coen

I agree SFS 5 to 10 is about right in my system now. Listening to a number of different albums this afternoon (even some difficult & poor recordings) and no problem it sounds fine. I have not heard this level of detail before that is so easy to listen to.

So disconnecting the CD drive makes this difference? wow.

I have USB 2 and 3 on the motherboard disabled in BIOS with just USB 3 (for NOS1) on a PCi extender card enabled (thanks for that one Nick!) and that made a big difference.

P

Thank Nick for this one too.  :)

what is surprising is how much difference a change of just 1 in SFS makes at the lower values.

A small word from my hand :

Yes, I think it is true that the lower the SFS the better it gets. Mind you, as it seems;

When things are not OK, the lower SFS will exhibit a too fresh sound, up to annoying when you play loud. I name this : it bites too much. So, high transients get to profound.

Notice that it is very delicate to call it a measure. So, this is because it is empirically found, well, by me at least. Only, and only when we "all" could come to the explicit conclusion that we improved our system for noise sources, this allows the lower SFS and really *all* gets better from it, it will be a rule; personally I think it is too early for this.

I also think it will be very dangerous to judge an SFS of 2 to be better. In my view (from the perspective of what happens inside) it can't. Still it can exhibit like better, but now it is subjective to what speakers do. And to have a hopefully more objective opinion about *that* - ask Mani. So, he went from a fairly "blanketed" speaker system to a "high transient audible" one (sorry that I can't express this better in my English). So, such a speaker allows to perceive those transients up to infinitely better. But what does it mean ?
Well, at least that when the system is more "blanketed" you'd want more transients to be there. But all you might be doing is overdriving things.
Is this bad ? probably not. It may only tell that there's no general rule for all of us.

An even better example might be the NOS1 vs the rest;
That rest will not exhibit the high transients to begin with. Still to a more or lesser degree there's something left of it. And so, emphasizing that with the lower SFS may be a good thing in such a case.
Notice though that with this last example I am not really knowing what I am talking about for net effects. I mean, I atually don't see a "rounded transient" to get more sharp by any means (like the SFS may imply). I do see it the other way around though : many things may round a too sharp transient into a more listenable one. Now *this* can only count for NOS1 users but it gets too complex to reason out the net effects. So, does a speaker which is able to show the high transients needs this rounding ? if all is righ not. Does a speaker which can not cope with that need it ? logically yes.

And the latter would be what the low SFS is doing.
This does NOT comply with my biting when it is lower. But *now* I involve noise as a cause.

Anyway, when I choose between 2 and 60, it's 60 for me;
I should have the capable speakers, but I did nothing to my 9 HDDs + SSD + CDRom in there. So if *that* is going to make the differences ...
But then I am happy as it is.
Ok, today. :)

Peter

So before with the optical drive connected I was  :smile:

Now with the optical drive disconnected I am   :smile:  :smile:

Surprising improvement.

For me, on my (as you see below) quite inexpensive system:

SFS of 430 or so, too "legato."  Everything is too lacking in energy.

Re SFS of 2 and 60 (have not tried settings in between): Both are "competitive," i.e., I cannot instantly dismiss either as obviously bad.  But within a very short listening time, it becomes evident to me on a subconscious, instinctive level, no matter what material I am listening to, that an SFS of 2 just lacks something, some final integration of the sound so it all flows correctly and you can hear all the musicians playing together.  SFS of 60 achieves this (to my ears, on my system).

On my system with current other settings (see below) I found a SFS value of 20. SFS=2 is dynamic and detailed, but is slightly "edgy" with some material, whereas SFS=430 is smooth, but less dynamic and a bit "dull" (it doesn't hold my attention as with low SFS settings).

Next thing I will try is using an old SATA II Hitachi Deskstar 500GB HDD I found as a Playbackdrive, to compare with the current USB3.0 WD Elements 500GB.

And of course, I will try disconnecting the optical drive first, very curious . .

Stanley

I was listening today the STOCKFISCH RECORDS "CLOSER TO THE MUSIC" VOL. 1 Sampler SACD and particularly the song n.4 "The Painter" from Sara K when I realized that the sound at SFS 60 seemed blurred and dark, then I changed to SFS 2 and the sound became much more defined. I´m not sure if this song is well recorded but for me at SFS 60 it is unpleasant while at SFS 2 is quite listenable.
The soundstage on the contrary seems more spacious at SFS 60 and the sound richer, like more reverberant, if it is a kind of distortion, I´m not sure, but SFS 2 is still a little on the dry side. Non of the two settings seems to be the perfect one. Maybe I should use one setting or the other depending on the recording. What I can say now is that not always SFS 60 is the best choice with this version of XXHE contrary to what I previously thought.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/STOCKFISCH-RECORDS-CLOSER-TO-THE-MUSIC-VOL-1-SAMPLER-SACD/productinfo/SFSA4003/ (http://www.elusivedisc.com/STOCKFISCH-RECORDS-CLOSER-TO-THE-MUSIC-VOL-1-SAMPLER-SACD/productinfo/SFSA4003/)

Juan

This has been the same for me....and  probably too many times, I've listened and compared even SFS values from 2 to 10. With most music I usually end up at 2.

Hey Boleary - I find exactly the same. I was listening to a very high quality simple female voice recording last night and ended up on SFS=2 because anything higher seemed to smear the voice.
Paul

When PA was first released I remember posting something about the SFS issue may finally be solved. It's because of your observation that anything above 2 just doesn't sound "right"; it sounds a bit veiled or smeared. Also, Paul, what you said about the level of detail in your first post in this thread is exactly what I have here, and its crazy good. The other night I was listening to one of the quieter tracks on Bonnie Raitt's new CD--its just her voice and a piano Twice I distinctly heard a soft creaking sound that at first I thought was a loose speaker wire. Turns out it's the shifting of her body weight on the piano bench! But what's really amazing about my sound is the sense that its entirely natural and musical sounding. Its not harsh or edgey.

Truly Nobel Prize worthy!

Yes a Nobel prize for sure is due. Peter - consider it bestowed!!.  It is good to see the experience of others because I am never quite sure if things are working right here or not with no other reference point.

I have the same experience with SFS=2 too. Additionally I recycled some spare memory and built up a RAM based playback drive. I know that this is a component from the dark past - but I found a sweetspot for my system.

Georg

Georg,

Not a bad idea at all. It is only a week back that I thought of trying it myself, BUT these days it indeeds need more memory than my 8GB - so I just couldn't do it (well, it wouldn't be the best).
Anyway, it is just one of the "Playback Drive" options which should be tried !

Nice.
Peter

Funny ...

Following this topic and yesterday reading again about SFS=2 etc., earlier in the day I thought "before I forget, let's set that SFS to 2 for tonight's playback session !". And so I did.

This morning I was puzzling a bit whatever now happened last night that really made me think : now what happened to my mains or whatever, because it sounded better last night than other times.

yea, well

I forgot about that SFS=2 completely last night.
And only now, reading the new posts in here, I thought of it again.

Generally the great people in this forum won't be fooled or placeboed. I won't be either.
But experiencing it by this means still gives a way better feeling.

Peter

Yeah I could use a ramdrive for that. But Only 4GB on this pc :(

I´ve been trying the Playback Drive in RAMDisk and the first impressions are that the sound is also very good, it seems smoother even than with my external hdd (WD RE4 WD5003ABYX) but the differences are subtle, I´m not sure yet if it is more detailed or not, I need to listen some more time but what I can say by now is that the RAMDisk makes another great PbD.

Thanks Georg, for bringing again the RAMDisk to the scene.

Juan

PS: Thanks also to George (nik.d) for pushing me to try the RAMDisck and remind me how to install it.

Uhh, How?  :huh:

Stanley

Stanley, this should get you going I think : step-by-step set up of RAMDISK.....  (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1409.0;all)

There is a little more complicated but very flexible free software solution running under Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 in 64 bit mode too:

http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/#ImDisk

Georg

Hi Stanley,

This is what George (nik.d) told me:

I did not change any initial parameter except disk size, so the RAMDISK image (RAMDISK.iso) sits right at OS/XXHE disk root.
In case you use same software as I did (Dataram RamDisk Free: http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk (http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk)) you have to bring back PC from minimized into normal mode as installer complains and cannot proceed w/instalation because some services are not running. Second thing to do is to install
Microsoft .NET 4 platform. My PC is not connected to internet so I downloaded 'offline' installation found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24872

So:
- Bring back W7 from minimized mode
- Install .NET 4
- Install RamDisk sw and choose either FAT16 or FAT32 filesystem. For free version disk capacity must be below 4000 GB
   (o/wise it will complain and not install ramdisk at all) I have named disk 'RAMDISK' so I know disk by name.
- Windows should report and list new HDD. Rightclick mouse format HDD to NTFS and 512b clusters (smallest)
- Try new HDD in XXHE (choose it for 'playback drive')
- Engage 'minimize OS' again


Juan

Thanks Juan, Georg, Peter!

@Juan:
4000GB should be 4000MB, 4GB I recon.  ;)
It works fine (haven't compared the SQ yet though). The only thing is when I reboot, the name RAMDISK I gave, is lost and it becomes named "Local Drive". It doesn't keep the RAMDRIVE name. Any solution for that? 

Stanley

Hey Juan, I don't know what "PbD" means? Am really interested in your and others impressions regarding SQ with RAMDISC. Any further thoughts?

Brian

PbD=Playback Drive  :). Still testing the RAMdisk but the sound is great, as I said in a previous post it seems smoother than with my external drive but I need to listen some more time to be sure which option is the best one.
Juan

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1409.msg13446#msg13446

First post second quote.
What I recall (and saw passing by through Search) is that it needs TWO reboots.

Sorry, yes you´re right it is 4Gb and not 4000Gb.
Juan

Hi Peter,

Do you mean that we have to copy the XX folder to the RAMDisk?, I understand that it was when we were using the RAMDisk as the disk where XX was residing but now we only want to use the RAMDisk for Playback Drive. That seems a quite complicated process. If the only problem is to maintain the name of the Playback Drive I rather to write it again and create also the Folder inside each time I have to reboot the computer. Or I missing something?.

Juan

Thanks for tips and tricks.
It works beautifully now. This is what I did:

- Bring back W7 from minimized mode
- Install .NET 4
- Install RamDisk sw and choose FAT32 and 4000 MB.
- Reboot (or maybe 2 times).
- Then you have image space (extra hdd) on your RAM.
- Then go to the second tab in RAMDisk, Load and Save, and press "Save Disk Image Now" and select checkbox "Load Disk Image at Startup"
- Reboot
- Then select checkbox "Save Disk Image on Shutdown"
- Reboot
- Rightclick mouse format HDD to NTFS and 512Mb.
- Rename “Local drive” to “RAMDisk”
- Create folder “Drive”
- Try in XXHE (choose “Drive” for 'playback drive')
- Engage 'minimize OS' again.

First impression is better SQ, but I have to test it better when I have time.

Stanley

Juan, sorry, no. That is not what I should have implied with my links.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Stanley,

Thanks for completing the list, now it works perfectly.


Peter,

I´m receiving a message when XXHE starts to play:

ChangeWP

Error setting the Wallpaper: A generic error ocurred in GDI+

I can´t see anything wrong, so I don´t know what that does mean.

Juan

Hello,
I've just installed the RAMDisk again and now is working after two attempts. Thanks Stanley for resume the process because it's a little bit tricky. Besides that I had to format the RAMDisk from the DOS console.
First impressions are that the sound is better. In my case I have been using an old 60 Gb Seagate Barracuda mounted on a LaCie USB 2.0 chassis that originally housed a 320 Gb HD ( BTW I have noticed that two of my external disks that I thought were broken in fact they weren't. The failure was in the housing. The LaCie housing that stopped working with the 320 Gb HD is working fine with the 60 Gb HD and the 320 Gb HD is working fine in a 500 Gb original housing)
But I digress. The question is that I think that the advantage of the RAMdisk against the external disks or the pendrives resides in the fact that it doesn't need any kind of physical connections.
So thank you, restless minds, who have rescued the RAMDisk concept from the past.

Maxi

P.D. Returning to the original subject of the topic, for me SFS at 2 and with this new XXHE version I could make the buffer size smaller.

It is the coincidental getting together of Phase Alignment engagement and the showing of the Wallpaper at first (I should have a protection against that in there :yes:).
Change the SFS a little helps (you won't want that) and set the SFS Rounds to another value will also help (you won't want thet either. :swoon:).
Making the system more slow ?
:nea:

Peter

I realized that it only happens the first time after a computer reboot, so no problem so far.

Thanks,
Juan

Exactly the same here.
I thought it was something with new VGA driver I installed while PC was brought to 'normal', but now looks somehow RAMDRIVE related (?)

Hey George (nik.d),

Would you please let me know your opinion about the use of RAMDisk as Playback Drive in your system?   :)

Juan

After some exhaustive listening with some well known recordings with headphones I can assure that the SQ is clearly better in my system with RAMDisk.
But there are some issues:
   - some sporadic ticks. I had never had this problem except with very low Q1 numbers
   - sometimes the "lower the SFS or reboot..." message pops up again.
   - the known annoying waiting time when shut down or reboot. I had forgotten this.

Maxi

Hi Juan,
 
The system I'm listening at the moment is not the one in my signature, my NOS1 is packed, waiting 'Lazy Me' to send it back to NL
for engine refreshing that will double the speed on the road. Some tuning, polishing and nice gadgets will be added of course  8)
 
At the moment I'm listening my XXHE PC with HIFIMAN or GRADO headphones through some DIY DAC and DIY Headamp.
Usage of RAMDISK as Playback Disk is great 'revamp' by Georg - 'listening'.

It is clear improvement above all solutions I used. And I tried several.
- Internal Hitachi 300GB SATA2 HDD. Good (better SQ than w/out Playback Disk) but nothing special.

- PCI-to-USB3 card plus Transcend 16GB JetFlash 700 USB3 flash disk. Improved sonics, a bit dry sounding.
   Big minus: have to wait for ages 'till music starts.

- Above PCI-to-USB3 was planned for fast, externally powered HDD, like the one Juan uses, WD's ABYX or new, FBYX series HDD's.
   I was planning to get one, big capacity not needed, but I think...
- I'll stay with RAMDISK. Perhaps Peter will add some 'extra spice' but me happy as it is  :yes:
  Big improvement. All instruments in recording(s) received appropriate, natural amount of energy.
 
NB:
I do not keep disk image (RAMDISK.iso) anymore thus have no delay in shutting down PC. You do not need this disk image at all.
Every time XXHE is closed, disk content (on Playback Disk) is deleted. You are keeping empty image. The only thing you have to do
after starting your PC and XXHE and before playback commences is confirming the warning message that disk content will be deleted.

If you have 16GB or more of RAM, there is no reason for not trying RAMDISK as your Playback Drive.

 :drinks:

Thank you for this George. I wanted to tell the same earlier today, but since I didn't know anymore how difficult it would be to reinitialize it, I thought to better say nothing. Great that you did and explained.

Regards,
Peter

Thank you George for sharing your experience with the RAMDisk as Playback Drive.

I wrote about my experience using Playback Drive in RAMDisk versus in other hdd in a new topic but I better post it here:

Playback Drive in RAMDisk (4Gb, exFat, allocation size 512 bytes):
Smoother, a little veiled in some albums, not as a general rule, detailed but without emphasis in the detail, bass not so tight, easy listening if you're not paying close attention and you are listening for a long period of time. Beautiful sound.

Playback Drive in an external hdd (WD5003ABYX):
Detailed, with more presence, more controlled bass, a feeling of closer to the real thing. To listen if you want to hear what´s going on in the recording and how was it recorded. Sometimes the sound seems to be a little hard.

Both ways produce great sound and the differences are not night and day. The preferences depends on your system tendencies, if it is toward the cool side I´d rather the RAMDisk option, on the other hand if your system tendency is a little dark I´ll choose the external hdd. If you think that your system is quite neutral I´d take the external drive option also.

Other way to take one option over the other depends on the kind of music you are listening applying the same criteria as before.

Juan

Btw, with RAMDisck as Playback Drive I´m using all the time SFS 2, SFS 60 makes a too smooth sound.

Juan