XXHighEnd

Hi,

Anyone using XX in XP?
What do you think is the best SQ version/engine# for playback on XP?

...failed to find such discussion here. Most people talk about Vista and engine #3.

Andrey

I myself prefer 0.9d engine #1.

Tried from d upto o, with enigines 1 and 2. For now d and engine 1 is the winner

Andrey

Don't let me interrupt your question to the others, but more or less off topic I can say this :

Since Vista is the development path for XXHighEnd I kind of neglected the XP version. More stupidly : what I now use to keep the SQ constant for Engine#3 (hence Vista) just influences SQ from Engine#1 and #2 (both XP and Vista). But :

That it happens like this is just the conclusion from people reporting degraded SQ in #1 and #2, while I actually did not change a bit to the core engines. However, as I learned during time other stuff just influences, which slowly gets under my control. On that matter, I will rebuild the #1 and #2 cores in a fashion that "external" influences do not so anymore, with for now the question how that will turn out for base SQ anyway ... (could be better, could be worse).


For those who were so kind to report differences in a next version on #1 and #2 (like in fact you just did Andrey) :

I am really sorry that I did not do anything about it (described above as "neglected"), because I really did not know what could have caused the difference in subsequent versions accordingly. Mind you, when I started this all well over one year ago, I had explicit means in mind which worked out. During time however, I learned that more things influence than I could have guessed. Also, the more you report these things, and the better you can describe the differences, and withgoing your systems used in your signatures (!), the more I will be able to draw conclusions from all of it.
This really is of the most importance, where engineers et al *know* that SQ can't be influenced by means of (no DSPed) software, or anyway don't have an explanation for it.

I can only emphasize on the fact that "we" are developing this player together, where I myself on my own am unable to listen to all various settings, and of course don't have your systems. I must work with your input, and I *will* do that.
Drawing kind of decent conclusions needs as much input from you as possible. Never hesitate to "complain" !

Peter

But the way I come to conclusions like one version (player) is better than the other is as follows.

I listen music at work as a background. You can call me :grazy: but I simply get paranoid when the sound is not right. I experience anxiety attacks. And after an hour of listening to a bad player (and I blame it all on jitter I get in the end) I get an urge to get the phones off my head and runaway.
So I cannot describe it in terms of soundstage, sorry, I just don't have the systems most of you, audiophiles, have.

So the less discomfort I feel the better player is for me. And also I remember how my vinyl records sounded back in 80-90's. I spent so much time listening to it in the evenings before going to sleep and enjoying it very much. So the closer the player to that the better.

About five years ago I started to recollect my music collection I had back then. And of course in mp3 :( . Then bought an entry level hi fi system. Played around with interconnects and cables. Realized that cd player is very dependant on the CD print quality while the data on it is the same, and I found out that here is jitter. Then I realized that I need lossless from off PC to my system.
Then my sound card was not the best one. Then not every player sounds good and everything in OS influences the SQ. Then tried Linux with its ALSA and mplayer and xmmplayer and jack. And actually the fact that there are too many variables on the PC made me sad :(. But I did not want to return to a CD player.

Then I read somewhere a forum post that somebody (it was you Peter) stripped down linux and ran his own very light player and that irregularities in supplying data to the sound card dac is as important as (results in more) jitter. Then I thought to myself that's a way to go. But did not have time to go there myself.

And now I see that You finally found a way how to overcome all those variables that influence the SQ on the PC side.
Congratulations on that!

The last thing I tried was Slim devices SB3 and it does not compare to 0.9d. BTW I did some blind tests with SB (which I shared to slimdevices forum members) where I could tell flac codec was working inside SB or a pure wav stream was playing. So I think I can hear something even without a great analog tract. I did the tests in my shure 210 earplugs :)

It was all to show how I tell a better player (to me) form worse.

Thank you
And I hope I did not give you a headache with this post :)

Peter I cannot agree more, and this forum is a very good proven tool to what you address so sincerely. No-one can make it by him/her-self. In particular when we all of us have so many different pathways to the speaker. And hence you cannot know or gurantee for the SQ of those pathways, then of course this forum is the only handshake between users and developer.
You can conclude from our listed gear if you know each of them and pocessed them. And you can conclude if 70% says yes for this and that version.
And as I know you, you will end up in offering a most flexible player where each one of us can find our preferred settings.

May I shout out loud: BRAVO

The above could govern developping of any audio components wich should address zillions of different listening rooms, amps., sources and bla bla bla.....Only by succesful opinion sharing the developers *football* can come into the goal.

Keep on    :clapping:

Gerner

Headache ? oh no ...

Below quote is from one of the first posts I put in this forum : Why XXHighEnd ?  (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=5.0)


Now what ? :cry: :)

Take it that I know exactly what you mean, although I don't suffer from this myself. But let's say that I know -without you telling it- you can't even watch a movie in the cinema because of this ... :innocent:

Andrey, from this point on you are a most valuable user to, say, all of us. Of course with this I don't say that other users are not valuabe, but you are able to hear instantly about jitter, where "we" need maybe days to judge the implications of it.

There is no jitter, bad jitter and good jitter. The first must be seen as impossible, the last as what to achieve, where I *take* it, that what is good for you, is good for us just the same. This is no science, so I assume it.

Now let this be off topic : how do you compare Vista with XP on this matter ?

Off topic, can't resist:

Movies!!!!!!!!!!! yes you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! you made me laugh aloud actually.  :biglol:
And what is worst of all is our russian doubling of the soundtrack where you don't hear the actors and hear russian doublers ...
Add the bad work of the sound engineer (do not confuse with soundengr :)). I hardly can wait till the end of the movies. A kind of self punishment I know.
But recently I was in San Diego (Hey Dave! I am going back soon) and watched Bourne Ultimate. It was great. Now I know how good sound can be in movie theatres.

End of offtopic.

Definitely Vista sounds better (in my terms (no paranoid && closer to vinyl :) )) than XP no matter what player I use.
And of course your player sounds best of all.

So Vista+XXHE is way better than XP+XXHE!

Unfortunately I did not have much time to evaluate it thouroughly. But for now the most difference for my setup was using q1 setting 14 and both priorities Normal. I tried Thread priority set to high but went back to Normal.

Don't want to make conclusions about XX versions on Vista so far.

Andrey

One more thing.
I already read your first post about your friend Carlos a week ago. It was another thing proving that I am in the right place.

Thanks
Andrey

Hi,
I was listening to 0.9p for 2 days now and compared them with 0.9d and j.
Funny but the 0.9p on XP engine#1 sounds the most "soothing" to me :) .
I will try couple audiophile terms here: it is easier to follow a particular instrument (I may say more detailed even), while the sound stage got expanded to almost total breakdown into left and right channels.
But the main thing is that I can listen to 0.9p much longer without discomfort. I will stick to it for now.

Did not try it on Vista yet.

Andrey

Here I am again talking to myself. :)

Just to share that 0.9r with its flac and mp3 is great!
The fact that Peter paid a little listen by himself to Engine #1 an 2 did improved the SQ quality. :)
It IS getiing better!
It is almost like I can't expect more of the SQ anymore :). But ready for surprise...

That's the kind of jitter I like!!!

Andrey

I am glad you are happy Andrey.


Maybe I missed it, but did you by now ?

I've tried it on Vista.
First expression is: a lot better than XP.
But Actually I haven't got time to do extensive listening to Vista engine #3.
I am now away from Vista PC, and have a laptop with Vista but the sound interface of the laptop is bad.
So that I could not even start engine #3 on Vista. I plan to get myself something decent usb with analog volume control.
And then I will try to evaluate.
But again: even Vista + engine#1,2 sounds better than XP.

Andrey

My own experience from day before yesterday ... true. Sounds nicely fragile ...

Hi,

XP and new versions again.
the version s-0 I could hear that there certain improvements in SQ. but it gave that feeling paranoia again.
That' why I did not liked it.
But s-1 sounds better than s-0 (discomfort wise) in XP for me. First impression it is close to neutral, almost does not have a special signature to say, and does not get in the way between music and listener.
These are my first impressions after comparing s-0 and s-1 on XP.

Andrey

Peter, which is better in SQ aspect?

Vista + engine #1 or Vista + engine #2?

thanks.

To be honest, I don't know because I never tried.
Engine#2 was created in order to go around the 64MB limit in XP, and was therefore a kind of emergency solution.
Note that Engine#1 was created, awaiting Vista back then, and was therefore a kind of emergency solution just the same.

In either case I met all prerequisites to squeeze the best sound out of them (IOW no compromises), but also, both are not bit perfect.
In Vista this is even worse, because Vista in Shared Mode always resamples (even from 44K1 to 44K1).

You may try to listen to this "test" : Test track with distortion which isn't there...  (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=88.0), although it would be good to have the reference first. Note the "reference" is about a very clear distinction between hey key piano notes and bells, which in Vista #1/#2 get mixed in piano notes with bell harmonics.
I recall that XP is okay even at Double (Engine#2).
You need to be in the speaker with your ear, or must be able to play very loud.
Anyway, you might perceive a difference between #1 and #2 under Vista by this means, and make your choice this way ...

 

But according to the help file in XX installation folder, engine #1 is bit perfect in XP

Is it not true anymore?

Well after more listenening to s-0 and s-1 on XP
they both give me discomfort. So 0.9r (or pd) is the winner for now.

I understand that Peter may not paid attention what is going on on XP with new versions. no problem:)
So I will just wait that someday Peter again turn to XP users, as it was for flac and mp3 support :)
0.9 r is good enough for me on XP in the mean time

Hmmm... since SQ in Win2000/XP seemed to suffer (from time to time) from changes made for the better
of XX/Vista, i kept asking myself if it weren't better soundwise (and hopefully even easier to develop for Peter)
to have two different Versions of XX. One for Vista Users only, the other for Win2K/XP users. My PCs are Vista ready, but i am not, so i'd like to stick with Win2k as long as possible.
I know that XX *is* a Vista Player at first, but I'd love the idea of having the best possible sound out of my windows machines not only as a byproduct, and from what i thought to read between Peter's lines, i had the feeling that Engine #1 and #2 [a dedicated 2000/XP player] could be sounding even better if some changes hadn't been necessary for the better of Vista.  :)

Well said Boggie.
All changes in SQ to #1 and #2 were unintentional, just as they were unintentional to #3 btw. There are just more things going on than as expected, and that can be in anyone's disadvantage. I know it now though, so in the future I'll sure try incorporate it. Somehow !.

Thank you Andrey ... you are correct.
If you'd only have the experience why ...
But as said, I will try my best in the future.

Peter