XXHighEnd

First to the conclusion : I don't know.

On a side note : Not so easy to judge because I can't use the same PC as my Audio PC for it. Sound is different because of that anyway.

Degree of happyness : Low.

Hmm ...

Why did this turn out to be so different than my expectations were ?

My first idea : Windows 8 ain't right. But I can be more sure about that only after some explicit testing around this. Indications are :

DPC Latency Checker has to be rewritten for W8 (or has been by now - I didn't follow this, but read it a while back).

Same seems to count for Window Task Manager and everything which observes CPU usage; or it is not correct what we see, or it is not correct what happens. But an example is : The "Cool when Idle" parameter. When this is turned off as advised, we see a CPU usage as per the frequency of the processor; whether I can't see the right thing or whether it isn't right - it doesn't matter because I can't "see". Furthermore, *what* we see is very strange and no matter what it seems an indication that deep down things are not right in there. Hard to explain - look for yourself.

I see disk I/O on the OS disk I don't like. Must be relatively huge as well, because I don't see any disk I/O from the playback. That by itself is wrong too.

It is way way too easy to incur for "scratching" as I call it, which means something like moving the needle over the LP from start to finish. So, not DJ scratching, but a "scratching sound". Priorities must have changed or whatever it is, and all feels like a similar change (for the worse) which happened when going from Vista to W7.

The worst of it all seems to be that internally the "audio words" seem to be able to get out of sync. A crazy thing though : not on the byte level, but on the bit level.
We all know about those "ticks" by now, right ? Well, with W8 it will happen that sound stalls and when it proceeds suddenly ticks are there. This is new to me. Also new is that the ticks can vary in level vastly. Up to them having sheer SPL (so to speak).

The response of close to everything indicates an additional (new) layer to me. A bit tough to explain without seeing it happing, but think about some indication (mouse pointer) that a search has finished its work, but that it takes up to 3 seconds before the result shows. Not because something is slow, but because it has to be processed by some additional layer(s).

All indicates that the "normal" Windows Desktop *is* such a new layer. The scratching sound which can happen at playback, is exactly the same when e.g. a window is moved from position.

Similarly I think I have found that the "no nonsense" output to the bare monitor's screen, is not that anymore; it has become a window itself which again is that layer (or *again* a layer). Proof of this for myself is the impossibility of having a Wallpaper shown, but which is visible briefly after all when our normal Unattended Playback mode is quit; Something overlays it.
Or what about the three times flashing of everything (like "Wait for services to stop") when playback starts.
Press Alt-u and again see the OSD text flashing. This can-not-be- when this were the native monitor screen as intended - not without the text disappearing at all (which we will recognize from moving a window over that text and then it's gone until a refresh of it occurs).

Do notice that keeping any window alive is the most demanding and earlier test from me showed a 10,000 times more slow (like when writing the OSD Running Time).
Writing this I even recall the scratching sound now, doing this all in the wrong "modus" ...

The sound.

What to say. Bass seems as prominent as W7 RTM. Highs ... can't judge them really. But if anything they have a nature. This is less audible with normal, say Jazz music (but cymbals sound more metal), but ever the better with ambient. No silent synthesizers seem to exist and all carry the flavor of a synthesizer. Yea, well, how to explain *that*. A high pitched sort of veil over all. Not blooming.

Left/Right information or separation seems to have improved. But how can it have. As if some roughness rides on each normal wave with sharp peaks, and those peaks ar nicely seperately audible L/R.

There was no single moment of fun this first sesssion. Only strangenesses. Interpretation whether is could be correct what I heard. Seems more detailed but the detail is destroyed throughout by the veil. I forgot which male voice it was, but it sounded like an annoying bag pipe to me.

More L/R but also far away.

Could not shut off "Cool when Idle" because I didn't trust that.

Very important : whatever I set and did, it didn't change a thing. But if anything, highering the latency in the NOS1 Driver Control Panel from 4 to 16 seemed to improve somewhat. Until right there my perceived "bit shifting" occurred (several times) and I set it back to 12ms. Could be the NOS1 driver, from which I -btw- already heard that the underlaying kernel stuff could cause trouble at 16ms. But bit shifts ? looks dangerous to me.

Generally the sound is too "impressing". I don't know the proper word for it, but it's in the area of tyering. Not harsh, but a constant emphasis on things which should not be. Having enough - something like that.

So ?

Yea, so what. Wait for SP1 ? Just ditch it right away ?
My personal main problem is that I saw no settings which could change this nature of sound. So now I don't know where to start. Yea, disengage the whole metro desktop and via that eliminate those layers of which I think they are there.
But can I do that ? Of course not. Nobody can.

If someone else can tell me one thing for the better, please do and try to explain in detail. Tell your settings, because no way I could have found a good combination in one evening.

But I don't believe in this, no matter how much I wanted it and how high my expectations were.

Peter

As Peter knows, I am not that good when it comes to describing details about a XXHIGHEND version. My sensitivity to SQ is far from ideal when I read what many can sense from different adjustements with the software and their sound systems.

For sure I have sensed differences with the last 2 upgrades (9-7 and 9-8), but for example I never heard ticks (apart from the beginning) but I have to add that I don't use PA... Can't explain why. Sometimes I enable it, but I am apprehensive of a sudden burst in sound. I know, this was happening in the early implementations of it, but still... I allow myself to change my mind with time.

I have tried W8 as soon as it was available last October. I felt that the sound was a little "brigthter" (a leftover of my years of listening to systems with too much treble - possible), but appealing. From this report from you Peter, it just confirms that I do not have what it takes to differentiate good sound from excellent sound. Wether it is because of my sound system, the acoustics of my room (too much echo), me or a combination of all this - the results are that I realize each time my review of something will be quite limited.

The test Peter suggested about the ticks had me listening to one of my speakers with the ear at 3 inches of the speaker grid. This and only this allowed me to hear some ticks at .5 SPF. My environment is not really silent as I use a noisy PC to access my music PC through bluetooth. I would be unable to tell the difference in SQ from a connected/disconnected CD reader/writer. I do disable it in the device manager, with a few other things, but to tell that I hear a difference...

Maybe I am lucky not to hear all these fine tuning adjustements, but if the conclusion is that W8 is not that good for sound, I will revert happily to W7.

But for sure, from all I have heard before, although I felt that with W8, some instruments were not as prominent as I felt they were before, I hear a lot more details before. This may have no relation to the fact that I use W8 though.

Alain

Thank you for you time Alain.

Btw, those ticks were not related to PA. So also without PA they were there. Remember, were.

And oh, more bright would be a good description for W8, if you only see it as a negative. So if anything is NOT there, it's a black background.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter. It would not have been you and all you did and are continually doing, I would not have tried W8 with the same interest.

I did not allow myself to listen to the latest version with W7. I will restore a backup tonight (Mmmm... Be ready to see an activation demand again...). Looks like I really have the full name for it: Alain Grégoire, Activation Guy... AG all the way.

An OT remark: I never got an SQ increase more than with XXHIGHEND. No matter the cables I changed, the tweaks I tried, the "this" and the "that" - XXHIGHEND is by far my "best component" and the incredible thing is that each time it feels like I have a new system... Of course there has to be a minimum synergy with all components, but XXHE remains the "peripheral" that amazes me the most.

Alain

I can confirm that you are record holder.
Anticipate that by now you (and me) will be under suveillance of some instance because the only reason they can think of you always paying and me alwats paying that back, should be fraude of some kind.

:)
Peter

Envision me, yesterday, being behind the knobs and things for over TWO hours, just looking how I should be able to twist the sound from W8 for the better. Not playing, looking.

But it didn't help.
I think I could get rid of the "tyering" stuff hence the highs were a bit more normalised, but the bass suffers from it and the fun has even more gone (no crispy details).
Well, at least I was able to change the sound. :swoon:

In a maybe strange way I solved the L/R being more profound, for myself. That is, how can that happen ? Well, sort of easy :
The sound won't detach from the speakers.

Hey, nice explanation eh ?

But it is so and really weird. If you (I) pay attention properly, you can see that it is not flat sound but far away only BUT with no mm of depth. Wat happens is a very strange thing because all what you hear does not fit. It doesn't fit the inherent "rather very good" sound. So, the detail and all and what not - it does not belong at all to sound not wanting to leave the speakers. Still it is *that* what's happening.
Beats me how.

The sound is mechanical. Like made by robots.
There is no way you can get in touch with it; Music/audio would never be your hobby when listening to this. It only makes sound.

Peter

The above snippets show perfectly why I am reluctant to adopt new Windows versions.  (Though since many applications were withdrawing support for Win2000 by the time of the Win7 betas, I did try them and liked them enough to buy the release when it first came out.  In contrast, I also tried Vista in beta and knew I would never be comfortable with any version of that pig.  I think it was a big reason for the ascendancy of Apple, just as Win98 gave a boost to Linux.)  It takes many versions that all the little fiefdoms in Microsoft see as an opportunity to load up with their pet functionality before they get to a point where someone at the top cries "Enough!" and they put out a version that is aimed at cleaning out all the cr*p more than adding on a million great new things.

Not true. One smart person did and it is not me.

So, Metro desktop totally gone, and now it's a 100% Windows7 desktop. Yes, including the most normal Start Button and everything and including the XXHighEnd behaviour at removing the Startbutton and bringing it back.

It takes more for Unattended and especially when all is brought back, but I just did that. So will it help for SQ ?
Maybe not;

Although I have Wallpaper behavior now the same for Attended like it is in W7, this is unchanged for Unattended. And notice that I managed to see the bare screen as a choosable task (alt-tab), so I *am* right on this; this is a window now (an application) - and the Wallpaper will not appear in that.
Ok, this can be solved by drawing the Wallpaper myself, but for now it is not about that, and it's merely about the SQ implications (I didn't listen yet, but expect no changes). *if* there is a change in SQ noq it can only be about the Metro desktop not being there (this is just naver started).

Will be continued ...
Peter

I'm not getting W8 on any of my computers. It doesn't improve anything I like and uses an horrible UI.
If and when there will be usb audio class 2 native drivers, i'll think about it.

No sight of that here. 100% W7.
haha.

While I have been listening to music through W8 for quite some time, I never gave XXHIGHEND a chance with W7... After listening to 9-8e with W7, I understand now...

Yea, but wait ... :) :)

You bet I will (wait) ;)

So ... I have been fussing around some more, hacked all I could hack and could also compare with the W7 install I had on that same machine (which btw is such a "XXHighEnd PC").

Ok ...

First of all I now understand somewhat better what is happening (to me).
And yes, I always like to reason out "merits" of what I'm hearing, and this could be another such occasion ...

If I compare W7 to W8 on the same machine and more or less not regarding further settings, the sound of W8 is completely totally square and sharp.
But wait ... in a good sense. But the difference is a sort of crazy.

In between the lines, briefly read this : Spotify vs XXhighend (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2424.0).
And notice that this is not unfamiliar to me. It was also already in my mind as the measure of why W8 should be better, no matter I did not like it much. Read back my first post(s) in this topic for what I am talking about.

When A-B-ing with W7 it is now totally clear to me that the left/right separation comes from the sheer fact that this super "sharpness" won't merge in air, when only it comes separately from left and right. Also notice the importance of my notice that no other DAC than the NOS1 has such an inherent good L/R separation, with only the Alpha being close to the same. This already means that "we NOS1 users" will perceive sound more hard-panned than others, or than even was intended by the recording (mixing) engineer. This is no joke, and while a bass can play 100% from the left through the NOS1, this same bass plays plain from the middle from *any* other DAC, apart from that Alpha.
I don't know about the Alpha, but do notice that the channel separation in the NOS1 is far from normal, and could be called an "invention" by me.
Ok, nice. Fine.

With the proper music played, which in my test-case actually always is ambient with synth stuff in there, the squares float through the room with special interaction. Notice that this is a kind of literal because it happens in-air. But, it must be allowed for, or IOW, those waves must be allowed to meet.
Remember my standing waves theory ? the fuzzier the wave, the more thick it can be seen, and the more easy two separate of those waves will meet and create standing waves (of mixed frequency). With Windows 8 this happens the other way around; the lot is so d*mn sharp that nothing meets, if it only comes from one channel. This is a bit hard to explain, but think very directional and the sharper the more directional as well. So, no side paths - no wall reflections. Or less of it anyway.
That is Windows 8.

Too good ?
NOS1 too good ?
Horn speakers too directional to begin with ?

Continued in next post.

"Play the proper music" he said. Yea, well ... hmm ...

After the A-B with W7 I was unable to judge W8 to be wrong. It just can't be while that sheer accuracy springs from it. W7 was saltless in comparison.

My tweaks and hacks had been applied, and perceiving the difference with W7 enabled me to think what to dial in which direction. Fuzz-up things somewhat, so to speak. Well, not really, but this was in my mind. The sound was already better than the day before and mind you, it is already tough to hear that good sound but think it is no good only because there's no depth in it. But here too, the comparison with W7 made me think different. Less depth maybe, but the depth from W7 is created by fuzzyness man ! Yea, oh. Ok. Hmm.
Let's turn up some volume then.

Hey, with some fine theories that even works. Haha. Well, what's actually wrong now eh ?
And this is where I start to play some normal music.

Ehm, 0.9z-8 is not *that* long around, but maybe we should save this new super-increase for somewhere in 2014 ?
Will we be able to cope ?

So ... what actually happened in my room was that I played way loud, but nothing went wrong because of that. Hard to explain again, but I think we can all envision a the louder the more messy things become. Same thing - those reflections. But hey, didn't I just explain that these had to be less now ? and that I actually tried to create a few ?
So yes, things fall together as it seems, and it just *is* better. It had to be.

Numerous, numerous times it occurred to me that I suddenly heard/understood words I never understood before. All is more clear *again*.
And I don't think I need to talk about more detail when the "so sharp" is already out.

Black background is back too.


Right. Don't try this with 0.9z-8e because it needs quite some new tricks and I am not even sure yet how to apply some of them through code (manually, yes). You will need to get rid of that Metro interface too, but I will tell you how to later.

Last thing, if not already clear :
It is not said at all that we perceive this as better. Or not for all music perhaps. But when not, we may need to change some mind setting, because it *is* better. Think about the MP3 experience - and I have asked the question more often : what actually determines that a wider sound stage is always better - especially when MP3 does just that.
I already know that THE means to test an amplifier is listening opposed to one speaker only (so, in straight line to one of the speakers - hi there Bert). The better amp will let sound your other speaker just the same. When I test with the "XXHighEnd PC I am about 1 meter from the right horn, the left one beting 6 meters away. With W8 I hear the left horn loud and clear - and this is where my "crazy L/R separation" came from. Nice eh ? yea, but farther away it won't merge. But maybe it should not. But how could it, when the sound concerned only springs from one side ?
Pump up the volume. Strange for solution, but my theory seems to be ok.

As with my very first line in this topic : I don't know;
Well, I think I do now, but I don't know about the prerequisites yet. Other feet to the NOS1 is what comes to mind. Fuzzy-up things.

Peter

;) Peter, why don't you make an XXOS ? The progress you are making always amaze me :)

Better wait for the next thing I have in mind. At least you will all be shocked about the technique used.
How it sounds ? dunno yet.

:evil: :evil:

I smell something new!!!  :blob8:

Peter, from the icons you use to express your neural activity, you look MEAN !  :scare:

Alain, you said what I always thought but never dared to say.

Wouldn't it be wonderful ? An exclusive OS :) But I guess it would help if each of us had a PC with specific components that Peter would have chosen, otherwise it would be a nightmare (all these drivers, protocols and behaviours)...

:)

I thought I'd better share this, just in case I am not totally crazy :

Let's say that because I'm (supposed to be) ahead of the world in finding out SQ changing phenomena, I sometimes or often need your help in understanding things. For example, if I perceive A and the rest of the world also perceives A, it will be my "duty" to find out the merits of it and reason out what happens so we can proceed on it and improve again. Also, often it is not me perceiving A, but you, and it could be my turn to understand the why.
Well, I now have one at hand which baffles me. Not that I expect an answer, but the least I should do is register it, so it will be a reference for later. Here goes :

I can't get in touch with the sound of W8. I've even been thinking that no "bit perfect" output can be coming from it, because what I hear is too "strange". But, no worries, because huge SQ changes can happen my other means just the same, so I trust this still is okay. In the mean time from theory only it was my idea that W8 should be much better for SQ (possibilities) and I can do one thing only : try to reason out why what I perceive as so strange, is better and thus I must be looking elsewhere to solve the strange things. A small recap of this :

Sound is coming way much more from left and right and in a way which seems impossible. It feels like the whole "stereo phenomenon" is out of order and it just doesn't work anymore. The two speakers won't integrate. This is most noticeable in my situation when at a distance of 10 meters I walk sideways across the room, and only in the middle the stereo picture will flip in. Pass the middle, and it flips out again and being at the end of the room (width wise) I only hear the speaker opposite of me. This was not so, and the stereo picture was there wherever I was. I never listen from a sweetspot position because I don't need that, and actually aim for not needing a sweetspot. With W8 this does not work. Why ? no clue really, but I've never see such a devistating change. Ok ...

Until by pure accident I picked up something from the floor yesterday at a position which was not in the middle of the speakers, and the whole picture was there again. Could repeat it easily, and envision going down with your head to the floor up to 60cm/2ft , the sound suddenly jumping towards the sealing and suddenly both speakers could be heard. Huh ??

In the picture below you see the speaker I use; it consists of two horns and time alignment between the two can be calibrated by moving forward or backward the top horn. Alignment for what we may call a "meeting point" of the two can be arranged for by means of changing the tilting angle of the top horn. So it can point more down or upwards.

I reckoned that that when suddenly the best sound is perceived from listening at close to floor level, I should be able to achieve the same by means of letting the top horn point more towards the ceiling. So I changed this by about 1 degree - almost nothing.

And so I now could walk across the room and again have the stereo picture everywhere.
The strain of all that impacting "sharp" highs went away with it also. Or at least for the two more albums I played. The sound never bothered me again, and whether it was now better than W7 overall - I guess I could not pay attention to that. I was too much puzzled by what the heck could make this happen. Well, the other way around, because I guess such a thing can easily happen when you have it aligned wrongly, but why with W8 only ?

I don't know.
Again I say that all seems to be way more sharply output. Remember, sharp as in super lean, accurate and beamed. Earlier last night (before the change) I had been listening to Neil Young's Greendale (just Redbook) which I regard one of the best for SQ. Never before cymbals were so clear and real. Never before I heard Neil Young's voice getting closer and farther away from the microphone all the time. But also never before I got totally annoyed by his voice being so forward, anf again never before I was happy that an over 10 minute track was finished. It strains. All so good, but not right.
This was before the 1 degree change, and I didn't listen to Greendale again (hate A-B) but I'm sure things have improved. Can even be optimal, but that needs more listening.

The FACT that all is PERCEIVED so sharp, does not tell it really is. It sounds like it, but it may not be at all. I mean, when I align the speakers differently and suddenly all changes ? But still it must be so that this originates from again better accuracy and "more lean" waves. As I told earlier, they won't even integrate anymore. Well, did not, because of an actual misalignment of the speakers I could never notice before ?

I only applied one change to the speakers. Just a hunch. But now I don't know what's to be done more. Chances that I did this 100% right are the most small. But one thing -by now- seems clear to me : Windows 8 can get you into troubles. But now hunt for the culprit. This is not XXHighEnd settings. Oh, you can remove the strain by the higher SFS settings, but the music gets dull from it. More than with W7.

I think I am finished with this now. Next is your help please. I won't say "and especially NOS1 users please", but it should be so that they will be able to contribute better. But they also may run into these "problems" earlier.
At least it is the most intrigueing ...
I will put out a for W8 optimized XXHighEnd version soon (today or tomorrow) and can provide a NOS1 driver from off today (ask via email please).

Peter


PS: When you still have my other posts in mind and especially those which wonder about the phenomenon of being right in front of one speaker at 1m distance, clearly hearing the other one just as well (which is all quite inconsistent in the whole story) ... I was sitting on the floor there ... :yes:

Peter,

Maybe the sharp sound has to do with the smaller sweetspot. All speakers beam the hf more than mf. For some psycho-acoustic reason me may miss clues to the sound location if the sound is out of balance (we might prefer some missing or out of phase frequencies). Just a little tilt may make this missing audible again.

Just a hunch.

I've had problems with an inconsistent stereo image when using mono amplifiers and polarity of the powerplug.

Regards, Coen

Peter,

Have you tried the WASAPI with W8 ? Just to check if it sounds the same as what you describe with KS ? I guess it will be alike, but just in case ?

Alain

Yesterday I installed W8, XXHE 0.9z-8-1, and received the NOS driver from Peter. By the time I got everything up and running it was too late to listen as the children were already a sleep. :(
This morning I had a first chance to listen for about an hour and a half, and Oh boy what an improvement to my ears and my system. :grin:

I’ve been a NOS1 owner for over a year, and have been using XXHE since v6.
Although I didn’t post much (and this being my first posting on SQ), I have been reading all new posts on a daily basis. 
At that time most peoples on the forum were using Peter’s settings with high SFS (430) and Q1 = 30.
I personally never liked these settings as they represented a very sweet and delicate sound, very musical and with lots of transients, but somehow to sweet and not realistic to my ears.

Having had some experience with live music (playing and mixing) the attack of the strings or cymbals just wasn’t there, and the sound as a result became a bit dull or veiled. I found myself more and more listening to live recordings as these are more vivid than studio recordings, I guess to compensate.

I had my SFS down to 4 and Q1=14 (this was back with version 6). But the trade-off was that some of those transients and musicality got lost.

Even if to me XXHE was the best in the market for SQ back with V6 already, these last few months it has been getting better and better, and with each new version Peter brings out a vast improvement in SQ (PA, XTweaks, and now W8).

Although I haven’t been able to fine-tune the XXHE settings yet, as of the first note I could hear more detail, better timing, better attack of cymbals, strings etc, more black background, tighter bass and less distortion, but this time without the trade-off of musicality, transients etc.

To me W8 is indeed more sensitive to the sweet spot phenomenon, but this also depends a lot on the recording. As I always listen in the sweet spot, this doesn’t bother me much, on the contrary timing and position of each instrument has improved.

This is just my impression in my system and with limited listening time with W8, but I would encourage everyone to try for themselves, as for me it was certainly worthwhile.

Given the fact that my audio PC is clearly not the most optimal for XXHE, I haven’t tweaked the XXHE settings yet, and we just got started with W8, I have no doubt that there is still room for improvement in my system. Now isn’t that something nice to look forward too while enjoying the great SQ from 0.9z-8-1 and W8 in the meantime. :veryhappy:

Thank you so much Peter!

Hi all ,

I did try the W8 version ( W8 pro 64 bit ) , all is working as intended with the exception of the cover art behaviour when in unattended , also when the OS is minimized .

I do like the sound , very smooth , good rhythm ,  relaxed .

Anyway , can't exactly say why ,probably something was better in W7 .....

Hi,

Of someone is interested in upgrading to win 8 the official way, he or she may better do that before the end of the month. Windows has planned to revert to their normal pricelevel.

Regards, Coen

... which is 5 times higher. In the US already so yesterday, I was told.

Hi Stefano,


Maybe I did not state that clear enough in the Releas Notes (did I ever ?), but this is not possible in W8 at this moment (or maybe never - I couldn't find a solution yet).
What can be done though, is not use the Wallpaper, but "draw" it myself. But this is for later.

Peter

No I did not. It is in there now though. Apologies !

Peter

Before nothing happens anymore in here, here is my final verdict : Will keep on using it.

It has been a bit of a long search (without any help of any of you - just saying ;) so careful), but what it requires is what has been my idea about it all along : the longest buffer sizes.

SFS=2 ?

"Our" SFS of 2 is unlistenable. Well, all is relative of course, but there is too much detail and the overall dynamic range seems to be too high. So what I noticed is that it has become sheer impossible to listen to acceptable levels. Don't understand ? well, the distance of softest parts of a track to the loudest parts is too high. Partly this will be because all is beamed to sharply or something and louder passages become "nasty". Not distorting, but tireing because of too much detail, which *really* is the case to begin with. So, we have the examples of spitting women and tongue-clicking men, and this comes all the way forward. Not good.

SFS=430

While the SFS of 2 will direct us automatically towards all the buffer sizes being small (at least with Phase Alignment this is so), with an SFS of 430 we can do all we want. But what is needed here is the large buffer size. In my case I stopped at Q1=20 and xQ1=30 (can just as well be the other way around) at my Device Buffer Size of 4096. This is completely acceptable for Unattended Playback (not Attended), were it for no clicks and no stops (although a stop occcasionally happens when a track is finished).
Important : With 8GB of memory this can't work. With 12GB it will (I use 16GB).

A Clock Resolution of 10ms or 15ms is allowed - under 10ms is a no go again (for SQ merits). I use 15 because all towards the direction of "faster / shorter" creates the nastyness hence too much detail.

I never fooled around with XTweaks (yet) and they are of the same setting as my W7 install, except for the "Cool when Idle" which I don't trust under W8. So that is On (while the normal advice = Off). Load balance is at the lowest value possible (43).
My Windows 8 XTweak "Stable time" is On. Off did not work out for the better (difference is marginal but there).

The "soft cracks" I talked about earlier, now appear to come from the low buffer sizes. That is, I never heard one anymore;
It is to be kept in mind that something is not right for W8 because it is too fragile on those ever same soft cracking (moving a screen can already cause it). But, this is when the OS is working on "your" task of audio. Not so with the all over higher settings - then totally nothing happens for tens of seconds (or for minutes with the lower sample rates).

So Peter, how about the sound now then ?

I *had* to approach it from a completely different angle. So, from W7 most (up to almost me) agree that the higher buffer settings make the sound dull. This was certainly my idea about Windows 8 - even far more so. But it's a psychological thing, and that's why the other approach needed;

I think I will be able to talk you into this (lay down on my coach) :

* What comes from W8 is way too much detail. Can it be too much ? it certainly can; the wrong things will be emphasized and what actually happens is that the balance is not right (this is not the normal balance we talk about).

* So we dial in our dullest setting, and actually start off at the other end. This is a good idea, because we know that when we know go back, at some stage we will meet nastyness. But, what we look for is our detail. Not dullness.

* It should be good if you forbid yourself to start out with the lower buffer settings. Remember, it's a psychological thing and really *everybody* will judge the more detail as better. But you shouldn't even learn about it ...

* With the large buffer settings dialed in, you already will perceive that more detail. So, way more than with W7. So, actually you will find yourself satisfied right from the start with these settings. However, might you still run into nastyness, you can always go some higher (theoretically you will be able to use Q1=30 and xQ1=40 and SFS=470 or so, BUT you may run into troubles on the technical side).

* Of course we are all so that we want to see what can be achieved more in the detail department. So, you will now go look for that threshold where things start to get nasty. This is difficult because this *very* much depends on the music, and you should not dial in something for a cosy song and such, but for something of which it is known that it can go very wrong. Use The Beatles (Sgt Pepper would be a good one, NO remaster)- just because I say so.
You can use any parameter now, once you started off with the settings I told about above. Just depend on my statement that each parameter dialed down will bring more of that detail. That Windows 8 Stable Time is a special one, because it makes the attacks harder and only that. It seems to express hits on the cymbal better (edit : when it is set as not stable ! - remember, my chosen setting is "stable").

Right. For me none of the above dialing down worked out for the better, with the logical conclusion I should go higher instead. However, at this moment and after using my current settings for the last 4 days, I don't need that.

Hey, the sound, remember ?

All right. No absolute judging, and only relative to Windows 7 SP1, and of course assuming the "dull" settings as described above (outside those settings my observations would change drastically) :

a. Way more detail;
b. Infinitely better channel separation (I can expect that this happens with the NOS1 only);
c. Interaction of harmonics which just wasn't there before at all.
d. A strange effect of the sound being farther away than before, while looking into it it's only way more forward.
e. Sound comes way more from outside of the speakers.

Ad c (Interaction of harmonics)

One of the first XXHighEnd versions showed that Mike Oldfield wasn't able to play on key at all. I should have checked that Tubular Bells by now, because I can expect this to be so again. Not sure though, because at the time that XXHE version was regarded "wrong". However, I'd say that when this 0.9z-8-1a version shows Mike Oldfield to be off key again, he just is.

The phenomenon as listed under c. is hard to describe in words; It exhibits as flanger (which is softer/louder change as a Hammond-Leslie exhibits) and unveils I'd say everywhere. Read back in this topic how I suddenly could see Neil Young being closer and farther from the microphone - something I never heard in the same tracks before. Notice that this is a way rough exhibit of this "flanger" phenomenon, so let alone the more detail this exhibits in. As I said - everywhere.

Along with this goes the vibrato (this is the change of key). So, where this wasn't the case at all in certain by me known tracks, now it is all over. Notice that I am not talkoing about vibrato in a voice or from e.g. a violin where this is an ever applied means, but the more "flutter" like from a turn table. So, when the revolutions of the turn table are not 100% the same (the speed changes somewhat) the effect of that would be the key slightly changing.
With the notice that this would theoretically lead to the audibility of "long term" jitter (which does exist !) it is merely like because of room interactions with the sound itself, doppler-like effects may happen. This is (my) theory only, but when the sound wave is pushed faster than the normal speed of sound, actually some doppler like thing would be happening, and a bass hit would be able to change the pitch of a high frequency bell.
Notice that -whether true at all- this is only partly because of our electronic means of music reproduction, because in the studio (when all playing together) or live, the same thing would happen.

If you combine all of the above, you suddenly end up with "music". Think like a drum computer needing random being slightly off of the beat to mimic human drumming, and this looks the same to me. And hey, just making up a few things, because it is new to me.
The "interaction of harmonics" I dedicated to this subject, is about the so-totally-clear buzz of for example two nylon strings can create (already one string can do that). It is like a zzzing which happens because the different harmonics come together at a certain stage of (decading) level and varying interaction with the guitar's cabinet. The "come together" means a slight frequency change of say one of the "harmonics" which now suddenly falls together with the harmonic of a different part of the instrument implying a sheer add up of the level at (of) that frequency.
I don't think I can describe it better, but these jump outs make things live. Real. It, btw, resembles my earlier expression about suddenly "seeing" how the neck of the guitar (etc. etc.) is held and manipulated, because *everything* is audible. Everything is relative too of course (to W7 in our case), but nothing of this kind was there.

Envision an album like Love from the Beatles (which I don't regard a remaster as such) which contains original tracks (surrounded by different lead-ins and -outs), that I played that album quite a few times, and that I of course heard the songs themselves hundreds of times - and that I did not recognize anything of it anymore. Like I was listening to a different mix.

Ad d (A strange effect of the sound being farther away than before, while looking into it it's only way more forward)

I don't know how this happens and never heard anything like this. It could be a wrong thing by itself, and it should be speaker positioning related. This is allowed of course, but I exactly never changed anything about that positioning for as long as I own these speakers (4-5 years ?). But, for W8 I already had to make a change (see earlier post), so maybe it needs more.

It is an effect of what the eyes see don't match with what the ears tell. Or that reality seems to violate physics. So, a few observations :

- I do not suffer anymore from not being able to listen from a(n actually too far) distance and no stage being there (hearing the closest speaker instead, also knowing that my being at that distance will be opposite to one of the speakers only). So, that all is OK now (it needed a more beam up of the mid-high). However, I hear the sound from where the speakers are, and not from "just in the room". If I *look* at the speakers, I see the sound coming from the plane where the speakers are.

- That channel separation remains the most obvious. I now think this just goes along with the above observation. It's mutually exclusive.

- Knowing that the sweetspot is some 4 meters more towards the speakers, how can it be that the SPL is higher at this larger distance. Yes, higher. We would say "oh Peter, this obviously is because of reflections just behind you at that end of the room you are". But this is not the case. I would hear that by various means.
And do notice that the phenomenon of "mystery feet" as how we call them by now, is able to create the exact same SPL everywhere in the room, which already can't be, but just is so. This looks like a similar trick.

- Also the most strange is that I have another listening position which is at 4 meters from the speakers and which is too close, knowing that the speakers are over 6 meters apart ... which just is perfectly allowed now. This doesn't feel like being too close. It works perfectly.

- Read the above ? Right. And *now* try to feel my discomfort about the sound being as forward as hell. Discomfort because I can't understand it.
So, sound comes from the place of the speakers, but is not layd back at all. The most contrary. And btw, this coincides with the low buffer values and the too high dynamic range which is perceived. A bass nicely plays, while a voice shouts right in front of your nose.
So, the latter not so with the high buffer values, but the least I would expect is everything jumping in my face being at the too short distance. Not so.


To wrap it up (finally), many of my observations are inconsistent or at least they are as long as I can't explain them. This doesn't prevent pointing out Windows 8 as the clear winner at this moment. At least one very important thing for me is consistent : my ideas about the large buffer sizes. The smaller are not to work out for the better but even I had to admit that under W7 they did. But if you compare certain tracks and perceived the total clearness from W7 and SFS=2 while under W8 and SFS=430 (etc.) I can only be clear about the the roughness of W7 (at the low SFS !). Clear and undistorted as it seems, but rough. Under W8 it compares as totally dull and 1 meter of blankets. But listen through it and hear the silkyness of the highs which no even 1cm blanket would let through.
Keep in mind "with certain tracks". Otherwise I never heard so much cymbal before. With the dull setting they carry still somewhat more metal than W7 SFS=2, which more metal IMO was needed.
Make it all small buffers and you will have a most clear signature to the sound, which is a metal one. And really, you won't last for one album then. Well, I won't, and I assume all NOS1 users won't; "We" are not used at all anymore to a signature to the sound. Have that back in an unavoidable fashion, and you will NOT carry forward with this hobby. Not anymore.

Well, let's see for how long I can keep up this story !
Peter
(not checked for typos)

Hey Peter thanks for this.

I think one of the issues that many of us have is that the whole Vista-W7-Vista-W7SP1 debacle is still in our memories. When the SQ is 'good enough' with W7SP1 it's hard to get motivated to try W8. But I'll take the plunge next week when I'm back home. If I go for the cheap upgrade path, is a clean install an option? And if so, would you recommend a clean install?

Mani.

Whilst I was reading your Windows 8 perceptions Peter my Windows 8 Pro upgrade order dropped through the post box.  :)

Sounds like the next few days are going to be interesting.

I'm guarded about making SQ observations until my system problems are fixed but I'll will post Windows 8 thoughts as soon as I have any.

Cheers,

Nick.

Peter - interesting that there should be such a difference in SQ with W8 any idea what changes under the hood of W8 could make is sound so different?

I have just clean installed W8 on a separate disc so hopefully looking forward to giving it a test drive next week.

P

I think this is the second time I have jumped in and given my opinion on a question you asked Peter.  Will have to stop doing that....

But as long as I'm here, my thoughts:

- I've always been able to use the less expensive MS "upgrades" to do a clean install.  I hope this one is no different.  I have not done more research into this, because like you, Mani, I like the sound on W7.  If Peter keeps talking about better sound, though, I may have to upgrade though it goes against my instincts.

- I tried an "upgrade" install of a Win OS exactly once.  Blecch!  I would always do a clean install unless someone gives me an absolutely unarguable reason to do otherwise (and I can't think of any such reason at the moment).

Yes, I would always perform a clean install. But make it a dual boot so you can go back easily.
Or was I saying the obvious ?

Peter

It hasn't been said so explicitly (actually still not in the midst of this topic), but I have a driver available for the USB Dongles people obtained from Phasure.

Regards,
Peter

I have done dual boot in uefi , with W8 pro . To me , W8 pro sounds much better , and I believe it is a fantastic OS . Nice to hear about the high SFS settings , will listen to it tonight .

Absolutely not dull!

Tried SFS=430 here and this sounds a lot more right than SFS=2 which just sounded plain nasty and flatties (remembers me those switching amps we've tested some time ago).

Somehow I got stuck with SFS=2 on W8 and went back to W7 using the same settings which was a lot more listenable but now with W8 its just more music and less annoying...

Thanks! ;-)

Bert

Bert,

You may try "Planet Dada [Flamboyant]" from Yello. This is pretty close to that "bouncing ball" (??) from Aphex Twin suddenly. If you now don't recognize more detail, then I don't know (not that you denied it, but how to ever justify this difference).
Totally unrecognizable.

Peter

At this time I like to denote Tubular Bells (I) as the most awful recording ever. Maybe nothing about being on key or something, but
a. distortion all over;
b. a totally "loose" multi track layered (mixed) something. No music anywhere.

I already never played it anymore since my experience basis to above quote (which should have been back in 2007 or so), but for example :

Slightly distorted electric guitar

Slightly ? heck, the announcement itself is distortion only already.
Ok, bad playback means perhaps. :smirk:


PS: Funny; the HDCD version is even way worse.

This was the most "annoying" Q-sound experience ever...

Never heard the sound coming around me so close this way, at some moments even as if my ears plopped or got confused by some absolute anti-phase signals, almost like wearing a headphone!

I must try Amused to Death! ;-)

The Yello track sounds very dynamic or should I say LOUD on the high frequency peaks, almost too much as it is easy to set the volume a lot higher than usual without having the feeling that it will get too loud which it does anyway.

Do I make sense here?

Bert

Do you make sense ?
I can't determine whether you now like this Yello track or not !

Haha, but really.

This is funny. Or maybe not ...

So, we once received someone for some NOS1 upgrade here. Of course everybody is tweaking, so this guy tweaked a few things too. Too bad he tweaked his NOS1 into two times the left channel output, or IOW fairly much mono. He never noticed for months, and I don't know anymore what it took to prove or convince him that he really had been listening to mono all the time. But he really did.

Since this is about a switch on the NOS1 I receive more questions about this, and I totally honestly always say :

Yes, it happens to me too that I only notice at the thrird album or so and then only when I recognize that clearly something from the left or right should be coming from there while it does not. Uh-oh, forgot to switch back after some testing ... !

Today that happened again. But in the worst scenario possible. I am testing Windows 8 for its merits by means of my "Demo directory" which contains tracks from a 300 or so albums and I was almost into the third hour of listening and the *only* thing I noticed on a fairly regular basis is that it seemed to me that Windows 8 was chopping of sounds.
And finally it jumped to me that I was listening to one channel only.

I really wonder ... how can it happen to even me that I just don't notice that I am listening to "mono" ? Or how it could happen to that certain person who even refused to believe me ? It always intrigued me. But now it is wild; my record so far was "into the third album" while listening at complete albums. Today though it must have been the 30th album because of listening to individual tracks. But it also is the first time that I forgot that switch while using Windows 8 ...

Coincidence ?

And yes, I judged Mike Oldfield from that situation. But I won't try again because I don't see it making a difference.
:scratching:


PS: I guess I better should not have said this about myself eh ?

Liking the track? Not really (from a musical point of view)  but the effects and extra detail are as you described.

Even in stereo!  :whistle:

Oh boy. Yes, I listened to that in 2x Left as well.

Btw, also played that Bouncing Balls (ehm, same story) and as we know it could easily turn into a smearing beeping some sort of sound. Not so today; only at the very beginning of the "bouncing" (about half of the track) and at the very end it did some of that. Otherwise all stayed in order.

For others : this is no music but some kind if ultimate "square" speed test. When it doesn't work out, it creates wrong harmonics from the squares emerging and they smear.

So why the difference in SQ in W8?

Here is a tutorial for a clean install with the upgrade:
http://pcsupport.about.com/od/windows-8/a/clean-install-windows-8-upgrade.htm (http://pcsupport.about.com/od/windows-8/a/clean-install-windows-8-upgrade.htm)

regards, Coen

I do believe that everybody can tell similar stories!!!
Sometimes it makes me wonder if I'm ................ .

Joachim

W8 is up and running here. The OS upgrade, XX install and windows shell installs all went in very easily.

The sound is another very BIG step forward IMHO. I certainly recognise Peters observations (long post above). It's good to be getting the sweetest sound from high SFS and buffer and Q settings. I guess in theory it should work this way and it does. I was slow to move OS before (vista to W7) but I'm seriously pleased with this move.

More considered notes on sound to follow after some more listening  :)

Cheers,

Nick.

Hello,
  Quick question on trying Windows 8.  I can get any build through my work.  Do I just want the basic Windows 8 (not Pro, Enterprise, etc)?  Are you guys applying updates?

Are there instructions for the window shell install yet?

Thanks,
Matt

Hi Matt,

Best would be to get Pro (or Enterprise). The basic version will not allow Remote Desktop which will come handy at some stage, and also I don't see any experience with that version yet. So you may run into problems which then are tough to solve (by me).

Regards,
Peter


PS: :welcome:

Matt hi,

To give you a Target to try I I'll just say what I used.

The install was on W8 pro 64 bit (I happened to use update com earlier Windows media). No updates applied but my music pc is not internet connected after the OS has been installed, so   I am relaxed about security updates.

When I first ran XXHighend it needed Microsoft .Net installed so I let the pc download this. Also to use Peters Windows 7 shell instead of  the w8 metro shell (Peter says the metro shell has a bad mpact on sound quality) you will need to have a Windows 7 dvd to hand to for the shell install to copy the Windows 7 shell files from.  The Windows 7 dvd needs to be the match the bit level as the Windows 8 OS you installed (eg 64 bit or 32bit same as your w8).

Hope this helps and WELCOME

Nick.

 

I did install W8 pro 64 bit , did try some OS updates , about 4 of them with restore points , but they could be uninstalled from windows update for sure .

Regarding the little program contained in the last XX HE version for the " removing metro " stuff ( and having back a w7 desktop) , well I did find that it could be uninstalled leaving the file folder there . Then going to the minimized OS , the sistem will work just fine without the metro interface ; also lets understand that all the applications there in metro would not come up anyway when UAC is turned off which is mandatory for XX HE ..

Again regarding the Music Reproduction , with high sfs , all I can say is that I had a wonderful night on friday , well it was saturday morning . :-)
Beautiful reproduction , click free ,very very smooth and calm .
I did observed the task manager at some time in Minimized OS , of course , seeing that all the disks in the system were dead quiet .
It has been a long and beautiful listening , much better than the sfs = 2 , is now from 60 to 430 .

stefano

Oops, thanks Nick. I skipped a few questions I guess.
What I had in mind to say about the Shell : The XXHighEnd download comes with a small guide for this which by itself is referred to in the Release Notes of 0.9z-8-1(a) (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2441.0).

Peter

... With my notice that I don't trust a thing of all this TaskManager and Resource Monitor stuff in Windows 8. So, it tells something, but the intelligence to interpret it to its real merits is not for me yet.
Nothing to really worry about, but for me quite pain to get things right because I heavily depend on it.

Peter

Peter, do you use the "Sysinternal Suite" ? It seems that a lot of people uses it and it is quite complete for many interpretations about what is happening "Under the hood"...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb842062.aspx

Maybe this would help ?

Alain

Alain thanks.

Oh yes I could or did etc. But this is not where my reference is. So, for me it is more important to see differences and with W7 etc. all was okay with the common tools.
It is also interesting to see (through) how W8 lets you judge, because I'm fairly sure that what's used is also used internally hence W8 uses it herself to "set(tle)" things. And now that will be wrong as well.

Peter

Yesterday I checked the latency of my PC with DPC latency checker (http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml).

I noticed a strange peak repeating at intervals, but could not identify what was causing it. I deactivated a lot of thing in the Device Manager but it did not change a thing.

I have to confess that I am actually using a wired network for the moment, but I was not convinced it was caused by this.

Then, going again at the Thesycon website, I read this notice:
(quote from Thesycon website)
"
Windows 8 Compatibility: The DPC latency utility runs on Windows 8 but does not show correct values. The output suggests that the Windows 8 kernel performs badly and introduces a constant latency of one millisecond which is not the case in practice. DPCs in the Windows 8 kernel behave identical to Windows 7. The utility produces incorrect results because the implementation of kernel timers has changed in Windows 8 which causes a side effect with the measuring algorithm used by the utility. Thesycon is working on a new version of the DPC latency utility and will make it available on this site as soon as it is finished.
"

Just in case someone sees the same and wonder what is going on...

Alain

Haha, I read your first lines and wanted to tell what you already told yourself in bold.

Anyway, see ? that kind of things I was talking about.

Regards,
Peter

As long as this peak is not true, I can sleep a little longer ;)

Alain

Well, Mani, have you tried W8 and if so are you liking the sound better than W7?  Because of course Peter that bad man knows how to pique my curiosity and so I just had to order W8 last night.  (Downloaded but didn't have time to install to a USB stick and thence to the computer.  Will wipe out W7, but I have a backup of that on my external drive, so no problem reinstalling if I decide I really dislike W8.  Won't do a "dual" boot because I already have two other OSs on the same machine (Lubuntu and FreeBSD-STABLE), and there would be less space for each OS than I'd like running four on my 256GB SSD.)

So Peter, Mani, and everyone else, with SFS=430, what are you finding sounds nice for Q1 and Q1 factor?  (I assume my result will be a little different because the device buffer size for the Dragonfly DAC is 512, rather than the 4096 it seems most others have for the NOS1.  But I at least can perhaps use what I learn from others as a starting point.)

And what about XXTweaks?  Anyone playing with different values for those than you used on W7 and finding something better?

Listened for a while to W8 and although it does some things nicer it also makes things "boring" and flattisch with a "greyish" layer on top of everything. Bitstream?

At least all those things mentioned dissapeared when I played W7 again and that is more to my liking. Perhaps more rough according to some but to my ears not unnatural and very acceptable if present.

Bert

Hey Bert - what settings were you using in Win 8?  I did not like the sound in W8 with the big latency settings but the sound at SFS=2 in Win8 I really like.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I used SFS=2 with the first trials and did not liked it, changing it to 430 (Peter's suggestion) seemed to make things better (sweeter, less digital) but the basic "error" was still in there.

In W7 all is clear and alive sounding, more real.

Bert

Very nice, Peter.  Very nice indeed.  There was the merest edge from W7 with XXTweaks and SFS=2 that's now gone with W8 and SFS=430, and I was even able to ratchet up Balanced Load a touch (from 63 to 67) to get a little more "swing" into the smoother sound.  Not only is that tiny edge gone, but I can hear more real details as well.  As you say, it's "right."

Overall, happy I switched to W8, though that is pretty well entirely because of the better sound from XXHE.  (Thank goodness for the W7 shell.  What could they have been thinking with Metro?  It's like some damned torture device to keep you from finding anything on your computer.)

Hey Jud, still haven't gotten around to trying W8 yet. I guess it must be today if I want to save some dosh.

But you know what, I'm just not that bothered. It seems a lot of hassle for an uncertain return. If I get my annual UK tax return submitted ahead of time (deadline midnight tonight - yes, I leave things until the last minute) I might bring myself to trying it this evening.

But I really appreciate all the effort you others have put into trying W8 first. I promise I'll do my bit with W9...

... But maybe Peter will have learned how to program in Linux by then. Wouldn't that be totally cool? Not XX the playback software, but XX the complete OS. TOTAL CONTROL OF THE SOUND... finally!

Mani.

Yes, I never would have switched to W8 if Peter hadn't mentioned the improvement in sound (I agree, even with my middling rig) and the $40 US price versus $200 February 1st.  And I have a feeling if you do go to Win 8 you will be extremely grateful for the nice little application included with XXHE that lets you get rid of the more dumbfoundingly obnoxious bits of Metro.

But apparently there is something more to the new OS than just the (very wrongheaded IMHO) Metro.  This from Ars Technica:


[Emphasis added.]

After a new W8 installation and with no problems so far, let me tell you something: the sound with W8 is AMAZING!!. I haven´t even set everything as is should be, e.g. I don´t have yet a new Activation Code, so I´m playing without Minimize OS and Attended but I can´t wait to let you know this:

- The bass has weight, I mean is solid and palpable, big difference with W7 (the bass was great but not the way it is now)

- The middle tones are sweet, not in a colored way but in a musical and realistic way. So the highs. I can´t "see" holes in the middle in between the speakers or the music displaced to one side or the other. The stereo image is ok. Big sound stage. The sound is clear and clean but rich at the same time. In other words a pleasure to listen. If this stay this way there is no return to W7 for me. I know, I know...all the first impressions loose some of the emotion with the time but, isn´t it better a start like this?. Sorry if these words are so contaminated by emotion but for now my recommendation is, go ahead and try W8!.

My settings right now are the ones in my signature. SFS: 2.0. I´m using a pen drive as Playback drive. Music in a different hdd than OS and XXHE. I´ll post further impressions with other settings. Can´t go worse with Minimize OS and Unattended.

I have to change some important things like maybe to make a new clean W8 installation, now is an upgrade although without preserving previous files or programs (there is a windows old folder however). I asked for a DVD so in a few days I´ll do a new clean installation but if I discover a way to do it right now I´ll do it, then I only have to buy a new Activation Code (with refund  ;)).

So Peter, let me congratulate you again for this new jump ahead in SQ.

Best regards,
Juan

I agree, the tightness of the bass (real notes, not just growling along on the bottom) is very nice.


Don't know if you can cancel the DVD, but if you have a USB thumb drive 4GB or more, follow this, particular attention to steps 10 and 11: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/windows-8/a/clean-install-windows-8-upgrade.htm .  Then you won't need a DVD, and yes, you can do this right now instead of waiting.

Thank you Jud for the link, I´ll see if I can do it with an USB key, I´m affraid I can´t cancel the DVD order but it is ok to have it anyway, just in case.

Regards,
Juan

Regarding the "windows old " folders , I do prefere personally to let the system clean them . In 64 bit system one of them could be about 15 Gig of data or more . Just serch for Disk clean up application in your W8 and let the windows gradually remove that data . Notice that windows old could not be deleted as a normal use folder .


s

I'm all up and running with W8 - no issues whatsoever (though I haven't installed the BT dongles as yet).

Well, it's certainly different sounding to W7. With my W7 settings (in sig), the sound is a lot more forward. Initially it sounds more detailed, but I'm not sure it'd be listenable over a long period of time. Increasing the SFS helps but seems to 'dullen' the sound very quickly. I need to spend a bit longer playing around with settings. (BTW, these comments apply to the music PC in my office - I have W8 all installed on my main system too and will give W8 a spin there later today.)

Thank God for the W7 shell - on first bootup you are at a total loss as to what to do.

EDIT: Increasing the phase strength from 0 to 1 seems to help. Currently listening to SFS=430, Q1=30, xQ1=20... and quite like the sound. Too 'thick' and bass-heavy with phase strength 0, but much more balanced with 1.

Mani.

Ignorant f**l !!
I told you ... you must NOT start out with a low SFS. When you do, you will NOT be able to have piece of mind.

DOES EVERYBODY HEAR NOW ??

I am not kidding.

You give us the knobs and then ask us not to play with them?

Anyhow, as I said in my 'edit', I'm now at higher SFSs and like what I'm hearing... even though I started with SFS=2 (not to my liking - too forward, a little like WASAPI).

Mani.

No ...
You may have missed it (easy to do of course), but you MUST start with the high settings. Then go lower until it breaks. The other way around can't work. It's a mind thing.

I myself am still not conclusive about how W8 manages to create a ridiculous stereo image which profoundly occurs when you are NOT in the middle between the speakers. All seems to be super hard panned and it is as if previously 2/3 of all samples got mixed (swapped) in the 2 channels making it more mono.
But this is not why I'm calling ...

Already day before yesterday I had a bad day's ending because I suddenly heard how all was a pile of distortion (no worries, read on !). And not by a small bit.

I have always been raving about Led Zeppelin I, II, III, IV and its profound better sounding in the highs and cymbals. It just doesn't match or fit the Deep Purples of the same time.

I regularly try A Whole Lotta Love (LZ II) to find out what's actually slamming (Dang-Dang) after the holographic cymbal hitting mid section, always waiting for the day that I hear an instrument instead of distortion only (on those Dangs). I always do so when a siginificant SQ increase was achieved. Like I think it has now ...

And then I suddenly got it ...

It started with that LZ I from day before yesterday's ending;
Totally unlistenable. Like I played with SFS=2 while it can't have that (ok, in my view and system). Tried everything and all, but no tweak could make it better. I checked whether it was the same LZ I version I must have played a 300 times by now in life (possibly more).

Because the LZ selection was still in my Library, yesterday I thought to proceed with LZ II. A Whole Lotta Love. Why not. Maybe it now worked ...
The last time I played it I thought I had gotten closer to "what's that instrument ?", but yesterday it only got worse again.
That the cymbals now were flying from complete outsides of the speakers did NOT make it better, but that is W8 and I don't know what I need to get used to or what it is I need to do to get rid of it.  No cymbals are that far apart, no matter this is an explicit mixing for that "flying". Just unnatural. Ok ...

Then I heard that same distortion from LZ I. Actually these LZ albums are quite nice to perceive the distortion I am talking about because LZ makes use of quiet parts with sudden attacks of sound. That Dang-Dang is an example, but the second track on LZ II is an even better example. Nice quiet playing (no distortion) and then the sudden hits on a snare drum.
Ouch.

What happens all over in at least these two LZ albums is that the analog output has been far too high. In Dutch we call this "over stearing" but I'm sure there's a better English term for it (my over stearing is a literal translation).

Now, how can it be that I never heard anything of this kind - not a single thing OR it must be the Dang-Dang from A Whole Lotta Love - while now it makes it unlistenable ?

Because I now was on the track of sheer ANALOG distortion (but from the recording of course), I listened with my ear in the horn, and hearing what you hear then makes you sure to never play those albums again. You may not perceive it from the distance as explicit distortion, but it just is there and it is not small.

On a side note, or maybe not, just *because* of the troubles I'm having or had with W8, I forced myself to tweak for the better. People may recall the necessity for similar when the NOS1-USB was ready, all should be okay, but sound was the worst. This is the time I *had* to create what we today call Minimized OS. Yes, it may occur strange or impossible to you that I can just force myself to improve (only ?) when it is really needed, but this *is* how it sometimes goes. So, I did similar now for W8 (could be revolutionary when it's out).

But it looks like it gets worse of it.
It now is as far that I yesterday played an album, which I own for two years or so, it is with Dutch lyrics and I think I have played it 10 times before. Already the first time I was familiar with it because it contains songs in, say, earlier versions from those I already knew, and nothing strange with it. Playing it the 2nd up to the tenth time, same story. But not yesterday. I G*d d*mn never heard the whole album before and the singer was not the original one. Well, it was, but I couldn't recognize him and I tried hard. Really focused on everything, but it was and remained a completely new album to me.

I searched the Internet for other's judging "strange behavior" from W8 and audio, but only found fairly mild "better"'s or "hear no difference anyway". Well, those guys and gals are lucky and have a problem. Or are they lucky and do not have a problem, but I (or we ?) have ? And we are UNlucky because of that ?

Something is over the top here. Suddenly my speakers can't follow fast attacks and produce analog distortion. Well, maybe not. But if I now hear distortion which is in the recording while I never heard that before at all, what's to be good about it.

If ... IF ... *IF* more accurate sound implies less mixing in-air and that somehow creating the hardest panning in virtually ALL albums I played so far is the way to go, then ... it is not for me.
I have more albums with too hard panning, and I said it before, the NOS1 unveals that because of a special channel separation; no mixing engineer will have heard it like this. Well, that is how I think. But this is a handful of albums. Now they are all like this. No even crazy mixing engineer forms albums like this. Still they now are so.

I have one HUGE problem with this all :
I was so fed up day before yesterday about not getting it right, that yesterday I thought to play an evening with W7. I had to test something in there anyway, so I thought to combine it. My playback session under W7 from yesterday lasted exactly 10 seconds. What a SH*T sound !! Totally saltless. MONO !! (relatively).

This is how super-fast we get used to things. Unbelievable actually.

So we have to continue with W8. But it seems to have problems which I can't overcome. This is because I can't tell anymore what is right and what is wrong. I mean, I can try to "tweak" back that normal stereo image, but what if the mixing as applied just does not allow for it ? This means that the recordings are wrong.
What role play horns here ? Something tells me that their directivity helps separating the stereo image into 2x "a channel". I know we are with a few horneys overhere and a bunch of normal radiating speaker owners. It could be interesting to see how the both camps have different opinions (Juan's being there already as an "opposite").

By now it is true ... When changes from OS to OS are so super drastic, it is time to make my own OS ...
:wacko:
Peter

What about the compatibility mode in W8 ( to w7 ) ? Did somebody of you try this ?

s

 :blob8:  :)

I love it when you just inject these tiny 'throw-aways' in your body of text, as if they're totally inconsequential.

Anyway, looking forward to participating in the W8 revolution.

Mani.

For compatibility with what ? I actually mean : what should be tried in compatibility mode ? XXHighEnd ? That won't do a thing.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Mani,

press Windows button + D on the keyboard and you are ...... .

I'm just installing XXH without W7 shell and will write the outcome later.

Joachim

Hi Joachim.

Does this remove the Metro UI layer from the system ? I think that the explorer 7 shell is about that... ? Not that it is so annoying, but it was altering SQ...

Alain

Hi Alain,

No. This should be a challenge for Peter, if possible.

It is for normal listeners a bit to complicated to install the W7 shell. I will get problems because W7 and W8 differs with the language. Or, Peter, is it sufficient/successful to install at W8 the identical language?

Joachim

I'm finding that I'm continuously wanting to increase the volume as I listen... always a very good sign in my experience. (Really nice deep bass.)

Mani.

Mani, hint : then you play the wrong music. Have something more dynamical (difference between softest and loudest) and you will see that you "can't" turn up the volume. It will get (way) too loud.
So this is that other difference (which I don't get).


PS: When is someone finally going to give me another word for "softest" like used above ? Is this really the proper word to use ?
:)

Joachim, I completely forgot about this. So, I read something like "only works in English" and probably you have read the same. At the time I thought "so what", but today I may not know the real merits of it. But let's say that even with a multi language package the English in there won't turn into German, let alone Finnish (which is of course what you use today - haha !).

What about taking a deep breath, do it, and see what happens ? If things break I'm sure it can be repaired (I will help if necessary). And notice that there will be buttons to switch back and forth.
Make a Restore Point in advance. Ok ?

Regards and thanks,
Peter (who can't try this himself because the base is English on his W8 install)

Still playing with the no activated version but I´d like to point some appreciations:

-SFS 430: The sound is much more similar to the W7 one, a little soft and apparently backwards

- SFS 2.0: The sound is clearly more realistic, the strings, bass, voices, all has more body, not only more body it is also more defined and the sound image is much more delineated or as I said before more palpable, three-dimensional, holographic. Like more being there listening the real thing. Perhaps that palpability can be confused with more in front or more aggressiveness but listening carefully, in my system, the instruments, voices, etc. are located in the same place as they are with SFS 430, not more in front or backwards.

About the Metro UI layer or the explorer 7 shell, I´m not so sure that the 7 shell has better SQ, it is smoother but the Metro UI has more vitality and presence, more of the characteristics I used in the previous paragraph to define the sound.

If this could be different with horns...well, I don´t know and have not the possibility to test it but I´m interested to know what others think.

Please understand that these are only my first impressions and that I have not yet even the best basic settings (Minimize OS and Unattended).

One word of advice if I may, let your ears long enough to get used to the new "realism".

Juan

Quietest is the word I would use.

Hi Peter,

thanx for the answer. It is possible with W8 to change the language now.

I  try to install the  W7 shell and hope that the new activation code will still work.

Joachim

Hi all,

Is it advisable to go to Windows Update after having done a clean install of W8 from the DVD?
Thanks, Ed

Joachim, totally unrelated.

Hey Adrian, thanks.

Regards,
Peter

The program for the  "W7 shell" installation for W8 works within the identical language only.
But you can change the language in W8 by installing the appropriate package. (Dutch / English)

Joachim

Playing music with the W7 shell.

There is a mono effect, as mentioned by Peter, which is less when oversampling is not engaged.(44100 native sound)

Back to W7?

Joachim

P.S. The overall sound is more agressive, perfect for Rock (Blind Faith  - Ginger Bakers drum solo in "Do what you like)

Nah, softest is the word I would use because there is a relationship between the way we percieve both sound and touch. Softest captures that relationship best. Just my 2 cents....

Joachim - Interesting ...
But please explain what you describe as "mono effect", because I said nothing of the kind and only the explicit opposite. And might you be confused by my mentioned "W7" earlier today (and its "mono") , this was nothing about the W7 Shell. Just W7 (it looks like you got confused by that ?).

Peter

It was the first immediate impression. The room image is much smaller in width. (George Michael - Songs from the last century) The music is nearly mono with 16x, with the native sample rate 1x the room image improves.
The overall SQ is more aggressive, harsh, bass is more present (in concerts you do not hear that much bass). The sweetness/resinous of the violins is gone. (Rachel Z - The Trail of her blood in the snow)

I'm not quite sure if it improves with changes of my settings. I do not use PA (the components are all in phase)

Joachim

Joachim, I know this sounds crazy, but my first impression of W8 with SFS of 430 is that it sounds harsh compared to SFS of 2! Have you tries SFS of 2?

It is not the harsh sound, in some kind I like it. The astonishing thing is, the room image is gone on my system, and the difference with 16x and 1x upsampling.
I'm just installing W7 for dual boot and will compare.

Joachim

Okay, I was just wondering if you tried W8 with a SFS of 2 and compared it with a SFS of 430.

Nobody is paying attention to my simple Q, sniff, sniff......

This is Peters square.
I installed W8 on my laptop last year, and there are lot of updates installed in automatic mode, at least 20.

I would say no, but wait for Peter

Joachim

Apologies Ed. I myself don't know. That is, I use the download and it could be different.
Whether it's advisable in general ? I don't know either. I guess it's worth a try once you encounter strange problems of some kind. I do not or I don't recognize them. :)
And anyway my PC isn't even connected to the Internet.

Peter

Well, now what. This is so SO contradictionary to what I perceive here (which as we know by now can't be understood by me) that it now gets REALLY strange.
Still interesting.

Joachim, I hope you didn't flip any NOS1 buttons or Is NOS1 in XXHE Settings with your trials, because that would encourage for real mono ...

Brian, weren't you declared crazy the other day ?
haha

Peter

Joachim, can you please confirm or deny this; what I perceive :

1. Indeed a smaller image when I listen from the middle and I think (but must listen again) that even the hard-panning isn't much noticable from the middle (or sweetspot if you like).

2. Once I am not in the middle - up to dead ahead in front of one of the speakers, the hard-panning is crazy and it's if I almost hear the other speaker more than the one I'm in front of. And this at 1 meter or so distance.

For me it's all a bit strange to grasp what I like and don't like because I actually never listen from the sweetspot (or middle). Well, you know my room, and just envision me being in the kitchen, towards the right of it when you enter the room. There I now have it working sort of OK, but the sound is and remains much too far away. Still it is foward. :scratching:

Btw, no way you need to agree, but is is so strange to begin with, and when you don't agree it gets even more strange.

What *type* of speakers do you use ?

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Ed, I´ve just finished my clean W8 installation from a DVD and I have not installed any update. I took the customize path for the settings and I have said no to all the requests Windows asked about internet. I can change my mind later if I want, but by now that´s what I did. I don´t want Windows 8 in my Music Pc but for playing XXHE so don´t need even internet. The great sound I got before was also with no updates at all.
There are other things that I´m not sure if I want like use of a network with the other computers I have at home, also with W8 (a Microsoft account is needed), not sure about the utility of this network for my Music Pc but I can keep off this pc from internet anyway. I also turned off the Windows Firewall and all the notifications.
Now after I finish the XX installation I´ll ask Peter for a new Activation code and will be able to use XX with all the settings. I´ll let you know about my findings.

Best regards,
Juan

If you ever intend to be connected to the Internet at any time with that machine (e.g., to download a new XXHE) then yes, because many of the updates are for security.  And at least one update (one of the .Net versions, 3.x if I remember right) is necessary just to run XXHE.

Peter, by the way - don't know whether it's the W7 shell app or XXHE that's causing it, but using XXHE in Win 8 on my computer causes my desktop background image to shrink horizontally so it doesn't cover the last inch on left and right side of the monitor.  The OS itself works OK in this respect, it seems - that is, my recycle bin, which is the only desktop icon I have, sits within less than an inch of the left edge as it always does, but it sits on top of an inch of black background rather than the desktop background picture.

The background is a slideshow, one of the downloadable Windows 8 themes from MS, called "Forest" or something like that.  After the background image shrinks, it can be cured by going into desktop settings, switching to the regular "Forest" background theme, then deleting the unnamed "custom" theme with the too-narrow background that has been substituted.

Can give you my monitor specs and settings if helpful.  It's widescreen, a 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio, I think.

Hi Jud, to install .NET Framework 3.5 required for XX you don´t need to have any update installed in your computer, it is installed automatically. What we don´t know yet is if the updates in W8 play the same role as in W7, I mean the influence in SQ.

Regards,
Juan

just for the record in my system i obtain the same exact behaviour as described above . 16 : 9 screen 1600 times 900 . But it does not bother me . Stefano

Hi Peter,
I 'm back (dual boot) to W7 and listening with the same settings as used to.
A good reference song with left/right separations is the  "Tsunami Song" played by Kenny Garrett. Right side an Erhu, center piano, left a violin. On both sides the location of instruments is just near the speakers. Instruments have a normal physical size. SQ is warm without harshness.

With W8 the instruments moved more to the center and the physical size of the instruments seems to be bigger as normal.

 The reg. code applied for W7 in late December is not working and I have to .... a new one.

Now I'm going back to W8, check the driver setting and play XXH wit the identical settings.

Speakers (no horns) see my sign.

Joachim

Juan, you have my meaning backwards (likely due to the fact I did a bad job of making my meaning clear).  :-)  I did not mean one needs W8 updates to run XXHE.  I meant one needs to be connected to the Internet for the "automatic" install of .Net Framework 3.5; and if one is going to be connected to the Internet, then it is best to have the security updates for W8.

Thanks Jud, Juanpmar, Peter, Christoffe!
I think I know what to do.
Ed

Hi Peter,

No horns here. I leave this to the cavalry ;)

My first feelings about the sound as I recall (compared to W7) was that it sounded "sharper". And while W7 seemed at first more coherent, I also noticed that the sound seemed to come more from the speakers than usual...

As if there was some kind of "inverted differential" mechanism trimming a part of the "common sounds" from the 2 channels.... Just an image of course...

Alain

Edit: As for the updates, I let Windows do its stuff. I installed it right from its arrival at the end of October (when it was officialy launched). While I agree that it could be best not to do so (the security issues would not be needed for those who do not directly connect to the Internet), my thought was that as a "new" version, maybe there could be early bugs that were corrected... I understand that this logic of mine was more driven by "let it be so" instead of "no way"...

I've just spent a few hours listening in total bliss, with not a care about SQ whatsoever (almost). It's been a very, very long time since this has happened. Something is definitely 'right' about W8. And I agree 100% with Peter's observations - a super high SFS is the way to go. I'm on 430/30/20 and it's going to stay this way. I reverted back to phase strength = 0 before my listening session and again this is going to stay.

I think things are very system-dependent. Having followed 'Nick's Tweaks' religiously, I'm getting loads and loads of detail coming through with these high SFS settings. But I'm not sure this would have been the case otherwise.

I've updated my sig.

Mani.

Like everyone so far, the first sounds of W8 made me feel "Wow." After a while of listening I began to hear the midrange, I think that's what it is, sound fat or bloated, regardless of the SFS. Reverting back to W7  I instantly felt what Bert described earlier: W7 sounds more natural, less colored and, therefore, I think, more like music. But what is it about W8 that it gives such a great first impression? I want that too!

I think W8 addresses a kind of harshness in W7 but at too high a cost: the midrange is now too "wide."

Here, the area of harshness in W7 is relatively small and best controlled with volume and, as I learned today, the device buffer size of the DAC. Because I am able to play up to 6db, with some tracks, too loud, I have taken to being very careful to find the most "accurate" volume. When I really take the time to do that neither harshness nor a muffled sound are significant issues in W7. I've begun to makes playlists using an SPL meter some guy was understanding enough to give me. See pic below.

W8 has been challenging at high SFS settings in my system. Every tune stops half way through. I've tried many tracks so I've had a good listen to the 430 SFS sound. One thing that strikes me is that the difference between high and low SFS's in W8 are not nearly as significant as they are in W7. In my system there's not a lot of difference between 2 and 430, whereas in W7 the difference between 2 and 430 is like night and day (2 being day!)  :).

Trying to get tracks to play through I started playing with the device buffer sizes. Doing this I discovered another difference between the OS's. In W8 higher sizes up to 16 thinned out the fat lady. The mid range becomes leaner and to these ears, W8 improves. W7 does just the opposite, the sound gets a bit fatter and/or smoother with higher device buffer settings. If it doesnt, please stick a tag on me: certifiably crazy. I've spent a few hours on this today.

My favorite W8 settings as of now are device buffer @16, SFS of 100, Q1 @16 and xQ1 @2. Everything else is either as Peter advised in this thread or as in my signature. Very W7ish, might even be better than W7 the more I listen. (I've been trying to write this for a few hours...... The red "Warning" at the top of my "Post Reply" page says 8 new replies have been posted....maybe you guys have this figured out? Guess I'll go check.  :) )

Brian, I'm a little surprised about this. Our setups aren't vastly different and yet I've been playing whole albums after each other with no issues whatsoever. Of course, with such high SFS settings, I'm having to wait 20 secs or so for XX to respond to any command (Alt-U for example), and I get a repeat of about 5 secs of the last track of an album right at the end... but absolutely no tracks have stopped of their own accord here, after 4 hours or so of playing.

What really amazes me is that amount of detail there is at these high SFS settings. Not at all like things were in W7 - in W7 I wouldn't have lasted more than 20 secs through the first track because everything would have sounded like a thick woollen blanket had been placed on it. But for 4 hours, I was pretty much mesmerized. I don't really know how to describe it. The detail is there without being pushed in your face.

I get what you say about the midrange though. But I like it. It's got the same sort of bite as when you're standing next to a real instrument being played. No rounded transients, just as straight as it comes.

Mani.

Hey Mani, its really interesting how the detail remains with the higher SFS in W8. I guess that's part of what i mean when I say the difference between a SFS of 2 and 430 is small compared to W7. Next time you are in the mood for fiddling, set the device buffer in the XX " device control panel" to 16. Be interested in your impression.

I must have a conflict somewhere that keeps tracks from playing all the way through with a SFS of 430. Changing the device buffer didn't help.

I think I'll spend the rest of the evening with W8, no more A-Bing today.

I figured I would attempt to eliminate room and speaker effects as much as possible and try to understand what is going on with the sound, especially this "panning" Peter is talking about.  So I used my IEMs, Etymotic ER-4P.  They are certainly much better than my $99-on-sale bookshelf speakers sitting on a glass desk.  I also get to drive them directly from the Dragonfly, eliminating my amp (quite nice but old and not as good as no amp).

First, let's get the obligatory over with.  The sound is just stunning.  I was going to play with Q1 and Q1 factor settings but said to hell with it just as soon as the music started.

Now, this panning - The imaging and localization of individual instruments and voices is more precise with this software on Win8 than anything else I've ever heard.  Even instruments and vocals quite close to each other are entirely distinct.  On "Cherokee" from Cat Power's Sun album, always a beautiful mess before, I heard every last layer and effect (but with no less drive).

Now with IEMs of course there's no shifting position of the listener relative to the speakers.  But with this sort of precise localized imaging, you will hear a strong, consistent sound from either speaker for any player or singer in the middle of the soundstage, and a strong consistent sound from each speaker for the players or singers on its side of the soundstage.  So as you move around from side to side relative to the speakers you are going to get rock solid imaging and localization on each side, i.e., strong panning. 

The precision of the rendering may also very possibly be good enough that imperfectly done stereo effects which would wind up in the middle of the soundstage with slightly fuzzier reproduction come out as one effect on the left, and its near-but-not-quite twin on the right.  I heard some of this, intentional or not, with the electronic effects on "Cherokee."  But on natural, clean production like "Tennessee" and "Down Along the Dixie Line" from Gillian Welch's The Harrow and the Harvest, the guitars, lead vocals and backing vocals all stayed rooted firmly in one spot, including Gillian's vocal anchored right in the middle of the soundstage.

yeah, right....

So it's now 11 p.m. and I'm off to bed. Had the day off today and started XX fiddling at around 9 a.m. Final results:

W7, SFS 2 and device buffer at 8ms is just so much more palpably real feeling. In my system, where it gets harsh is pretty much where live music when suddenly too loud,  can sound harsh, or so it seems to me (Give Eva Cassidy, Autumn Leaves a listen or the first movement of Sibelius', Symphony #1, any version but Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra & Leif Segerstam is my favorite) I think Pedal once compared the W7 sound to kodachrome film-which I took to mean a very vivid realism in the sound. W8 never quite gets there, though it's very detailed and, in my system, in some apparently less important way (than the vivd realism of W7) it seems to have a softer more pleasant sound. My final W8 settings ended up at SFS of 2, device buffer 16ms.

If I had my druthers, I'd have our developer work on the heebegeebee's of W7 rather than those of W8 cause there seem to be fewer of them  :)

Guys,

Thank you for all the input so far. As you can imagine by now, no man can do this alone. It needs the hunches at least.

Please keep it coming. Also from others. And I really encourage all to at least try W8 and express about it, even if you are not sure what you are hearing exactly.
You are promised that WOW! which by now can be stated as common between all of us.

Regards !
Peter

Brian,

You seem to be a good testcase on something else ...

The stops you perceive in W8 - could it be so that you have these too in W7 when you use the NOS1 driver for W8 in there ? Using the same settings everywhere of course.

No worries that you may destroy something because you will be able to go back to the 1.02 driver for W7. But when you are trying those stops anyway, maybe you perceive a different SQ in the mean time ?

No *need* to do this, but I feel (no, see) that W8 is sensitive to things which are a bit beyond me at this moment, and when it is your system which is critical to this respect somewhere, it might well be that it is not W8 but the driver (ok, this is confusing, but for me the outcome can be important).

Thanks,
Peter

With the same settings I do hear on my system a mono effect. The stage is gone. The Instruments are concentrated more to the Center.

The bass on Wynton Marsalis - Sunflower - was on the left side and is now in the center.

I will try Mani's Settings

Joachim

Thank you Boleary,

with SFS 2 I'm back in business and the Magic is there again.

Joachim

Jud, this is funny. I have the same (but just a fixed Wallpaper) but vertically. It is just how W8 restores its Wallpaper and like I just described elsewhere, the way this now works seems wrong to me (not for the outcome (ok, too) but for how it has been setup technically). Here too (like a few weeks back) I must refer to the faxt that this desktop now is a program (where we now are able to run the W7 shell in). So, a "form" like from XXHighEnd, while before it was just the screen. This makes it all subject to the size of the form, and that size is not restored properly (I think !).

I don't think I can do anything about it, or at least don't like to give it priority right now. I already know that Google brings me nothing on this subject, and it needs real digging. I'd like to to that (in ;)) another time).

Peter

Yes, second because the first one was ended due to several boot failures caused by an external HDD that was connected to another USB port preventing my XP OS to start up. While chasing this fault I somehow mixed up something elsewhere and it was needed to install W8 freshly...

Perhaps a good thing because the first install was somewhat older and updated regulary and several XX updates as well.

Everything is working fine again now and I'll start to play with W8 SFS = 430 for a while and get used to that (just to please Peter).

I'll be back...  ;)

Apart from Jud's great resemblance of what happens (at least here), I think Alain put out the best description of what I perceive. If you read carefully into that little text, you see synthesis, fake and "processing" the least. But also look at this from Jud :


I would say we are on to the merits of what is happening, though still not knowing how it happens. So, true; but is it really a twin as how you describe it ? I perceive the exact same sense of it (and indeed not from all music) BUT (and now hop back to Alain's observation), like the timing between left and right is not equal. So, our twins, to me, seem not to be able to form like this, not even in electronic music. Oh, it can be done, but it is not a real thing which is applied. Think like this :

Set up a synthesizer voice with some sawtooth. On that super impose another "VCO" (anothert voice) but have it time delayed for its frequency compared to the first and then such that the second has its tops where the other has its dips (envision the wave). Now output each to its own (L/R) channel. And hey, have the tops and dips in eachother's middle for any frequency ! (which makes the delay a variablee subject to the frequency).
... I don't think that can be done in the first place, and it certainly (??) can't be done with output to separate channels.

When the delay is fixed in time, a rather similar effect may happen, but maybe not so profound; it would depend on the frequency (hence music). But, I am fine if we look at it like this (is what is happening).
Next, it would be fairly easy for the OS to make a few mistakes and output to the left channel vs the right channel in a "lagged" fashion. Say that the samples for L and R sure go to the proper channel, but that someone is smart (??) and collects 10 samples for L and output them and next 10 for R and output them. It would be more efficient ...
... and exhibit this effect.

... and I am a conspiracy thinker of course ...

When a thing like this happens, it would not make the lot bit perfect. And well, I have been looking for reports about this, but all I ran into is that this is OK for W8. But is it really ?

When a thing like this really would be happening, it can happen right in advance of the digital output. This means that any internal loop-back capture would miss it; it will report bit perfect. But take e.g. SPDIF out and loop that back with a cable, and it can't be missed.

This latter is how it should be done and how I always did it. Possibly I saw nobody doing it like this and already the fact that my method needs trimming of the start of the result in order to align it for the remainder is a pain and possibly why people don't do it like that. Somehow I always see people making "null" (diff) files and it seems to easy; as if this trimming is not in order, which possibly is not in order indeed with an internal (software) loopback.

Add to it that in the NOS1 driver this "loop-back" provision is there just the same and that after this a ton of OS kernel code is still in charge.

My sort of point : I don't own a capture device anymore so I can't check.

My sort of other (conspiracy) point : One of the NOS1 users noticed that the system volume could be used with Kernel Streaming. Now THAT is odd. I believe it was so that this only happened with WASAPI active (so, Normal OS Mode or let WASAPI active). Bert ?? But anyway, this looks totally 100% impossible to me, knowing my own driver. This IS a bit tricky, because the W8 part (new in the 1.03 version) of that was not made by myself, but the part which does or does not "subscribe" to Windows Volume events is in my own code, and that code was not changed. However, whatever is in my code can be in kernel code after that and overrule it.

What I also read - and none of it was checked by me in my own system - is that Shared Mode can now be bit perfect. This was not so. So, things changed here for sure, but don't ask me whether it is related to my conspiracy subject.
The fact though that Shared Mode can be bit perfect while Exclusive Mode clearly is not once the Windows volume is in between all, tells me that at least there is a fair possibility that we don't listen to bit perfect at all, and maybe not only because of some influencing volume which should not be there in the first place.

For me it is of utmost importance that I can't get a concistent view of what is happening and that exactly never happened before. This can be looked at as similar to fairly inconsistent judgements of people, which also never happened before much. Somehow, suddenly, all is subject to PC's, chains and speakers. Maybe we all talk about the same thing and it just needs the proper "technical" judgement, like from Alain, Jud and me for that matter.

If someone is willing to grab SPDIF out (can be from the MoBo) and loop that back into a recording device with SPDIF in, record a full track like that ... then I will be happy to spend the time and look for bit perfectness. Better not try to do this latter yourself because when it is bit perfect it can take you an hour already to find the common part at the start of the both files (recording and original) and many hours more before you give up at finding that part (because it just is not there). I have done it many times before so it is far more easy for me.

If this is a NOS1 user doing this, don't forget to deactivate Is NOS1 and play 16/44100 natively (no upsampling).
And *if* someone is going to do this, please announce it in this topic, so we are not all doing the same thing. Another one may do it just the same of course - and which would be good for some safety or sanity check, but it is not really required. One should be enough.

So, hoping with can get some conspiracy thinking out of the way ...
Peter

Hey Bert,

Second ? First ? ... Can you imagine that I have NO idea what you are talking about ?
Did you forget to quote something perhaps ?

Peter

I did change the title of the topic...

Bert

Have been playing XX for an hour in W8 with a SFS of 430 without any issues. Initially the first song in the first playlist stopped halfway, but I selected the second song in the list and everything has worked fine ever since, including playng different lists/cd rips/ albums. Two differences from last night: a. I took Mani's suggestion and set PA strength to 0, and, b. I'm playing at barely audible volume cause my wife is sleeping in the room directly below. Perhaps my stopping issue will reappear later today when I turn up the volume.

Peter, when folks here wake up I'll load the W8 USB driver into W7 and see if it induces the stopping issue, as well as see if there's a SQ difference.

Let me clarify my previous posts: when I talked about setting the device buffer to 16ms, I probably should have said USB driver and not device buffer.

Lastly, check out Peters W8 signature: XX is on a ramdisk separate from the OS and his playback drive is on a second ramdisK! Further he's using WiFi with a SFS of 270.....Holy sh*t!

Man, that was a secret !
But don't put much value to that. Not yet anyway. I'm just building a lean machine and am half way; didn't know how to leave out that information without putting my W8 settings which may be useful to some. So, a few things work here where no man has gone before, but soundwise it tells nothing so far.

I sure missed that !
Ok.

Well my stopping issue appears to have disappeared. Volume up and PA intensity to 1 and, today, all works with a SFS of 430, which btw sounds very, very good. Didn't do anything to fix it.

Too much fricken' fun!

I don't know if it is of importance, but with the Explorer7 (in W8), using RDC through wired network, a little melody plays for a 2 seconds as soon as I log in ? This with internal soundcard disabled... I did not realize this before, since I generally disable the System Volume (mute).

I tried the Windows System Volume, but it does not work, neither in WASAPI nor in KS mode...

Alain

Peter,

This could sound weird, but has someone tried this with one of the speakers in inverted phase ?

 :o

Alain

Did you ?

It doesn't sound so weird, because it sounds something like that ...

I would have if I was sure of my aptitude to detect differences that could lead to an understanding of the differences we hear compared to W7... At this point though, I could be misleading...

...And waiting for my NOS1 that should arrive soon :) Monday or Tuesday :) Don't forget about what I ask in my last PM ;)

Alain

At least L/R phase is OK. That was easy to check of course.

Yes, that just depends on which Windows theme and/or sound scheme is active.

YAHOO !!

I found the solution to this all. I just have a GREAT couple of hours behind me.

but

Almost too embarrassing to eleborate about it.
Possibly the most NORMAL sound I heard ever.

But be prepared to be shocked ...
No smiley for this, but here is a hint : :stop:
Tudelidoki !
Peter


PS: OK, wait. The first one who is able to come up with the key to this, receives 250 euros from personal me. This is how happy I am. Hey, start shouting the most ridiculous now !
You have 10 (that is TEN) hours left from of the time of this post ...

PPS: Disclaimer : Unless I find out later that I booted into a wrong OS like MSDos 2.0 or something. Haha oh uh, nah, how ?

Guess it has to do with stopping something, maybe?  Some piece of the OS, perhaps.  Or maybe even some hardware function.  But what?

Oh, one answer allowed per contender !

Jud, you can re-apply. Just because it is you.

It's OK, we have company this evening.  My wife has ordered me into the shower, and someone will surely have gotten it before I get back.

Good luck, all!   ;)

Ok, you didn't activate!

Regards, Coen

Ok stupid one. Windows on Ramdisk.

 :)

Firstly, I just can't replicate anything approaching what Joachim and Alain are describing. I'm getting perfect stereo panning and a generally very wide sound stage.

As to Peter's Yahoo! moment, I'll go for WASAPI still working with KS - kind of interleaving. Well Peter did say "start shouting the most ridiculous".

Mani.

Hi Mani,

I should have added that this "was" how I felt the first times I listened to W8, right after listening to W7... The image I expressed - well, I was ashamed of it after - but now that I am taking some distance with W7, I don't know anymore...

I would not worry about this, since I can see that you have quite a better grasp about audio related situations than I :)

Alain
 

So I tried win8 too.
What a PITA!!!!
After regular problems like a DVD not starting as system, output of the BIOS going to another monitor I got it to work.
But now the volume goes down by itself.
When in desktop mode the corner mouse trick doesn't work anymore. When installing updates it starts with a question what browser you want and does not install it and stops doing anything.
No output from the highface so no idea what XXHE sounds like.
First tried 32 bit but it reported a problem with one of the music harddisks for which I should contact the manufacturer (Samsung!).
The harddisk light did not turn of. So I installed 64 bit and then problems only got worse. (Harddisk was ok now).
But I like the panoramas! Eiffeltower from beneath, Chicago beautifull.
So for me, Peter please make your own OS.
Even Win 7 is dying when I'm writing this.
Maybe we have to wait for SP1, but if it does not come soon MS will be dead.
Sorry for the negative mood but I think we should protect people from this frustration.

Maybe your list of processes in the setting area is not correct?
Cheers
Eric

Maybe your list of processes in the setting area is not correct?
Cheers
Eric

HI Mani,

On my system (with various settings) the soundstage is very weird. I hear a "ball" in the Center and attached the left and right speakers, very incoherent.
Micheal Bubles voice has a width of 2 meters, even if I sit in the sweet spot.

Joachim

NO, MS is supporting W7 with updates until 2020 according to their statement last year.

Joachim

Joachim,

Although at first you seemed to have a quite contradictionary description compared to my own (with your "mono" and such), this is by far the best description of how I perceive it.

What could be interesting is that I had someone over the other day who was not able to "see" what I see. We just couldn't agree upon me finding it all sh*t and him finding it all the best. Firstly it never happened before that I could not agree with whatever someone was telling from my system in my room, but secondly it may need experience (of your own sound) to "see" the weird difference. And in addition to that, possibly people can be sensitive to what happens. The resolution of the ear perhaps. Say, when one's resolution is not the best you won't hear a difference between left and right as how it happens with W8 (some fast switching as it seems). Then you'd have a normal stereo image I guess.

Thanks,
Peter

I am probably too late now but I am sure it has something to do with "stupidity" or some setting somewhere...

Settings for the USB driver? Again a switch set wrongly on the NOS1?

Just to name a few, could be anything...  ;)

Bert

Hey Gerard,

Of course you experienced what you did, but I don't think this is normal or common. Should not happen at all.
But do you know that you need a W8 compliant BIOS ? This is not commonly known, but true. And from what you described it really looks to me that in that area something is wrong. So check your MoBo manufacturer for it !
Well, if you still have the guts. :)

Regards,
Peter

So, here we go on the YAHOO !

You will know about my more often expressed thoughts about add noise to equalize a one source of noise hence profound "frequency" ? And what I told about "over the top".
Not being sure at all whether it is something like this now happening with W8 (too few noise sources) I thought about how to add boat loads of noise (sources) so it would randomize.

I must honestly add that what I next did I had to do for another reason actually, because I could not do what I am trying to do in the normal "environment". And next I thought, what the heck, it may work out for the better anyway, so let's try.

:scratching:

The thing I could not do, I couldn't do in Minimized OS Mode. Again I had been rebooting the whole day yesterday to get it done, and although I may have a clue by now, yesterday I had to give up and wanted to play with my new tweak. Do notice that I already had played with it in Minimized OS Mode, and that did not help much for my general (panning etc.) problem.

Long story short : I used Normal OS Mode, only shut off the Desktop Services, used my new tweak (which I think is rather irrelevant) and ... YAHOO !.
Right from the start I didn't perceive the strange "stereo" effect at sitting in front of the right speaker and otherwise .... what a RELIEF listening to indeed literal "palpable" sound. So SO normal. Phhhhhew.

Just W7, but with additional things for the better which I can't describe yet. But, I must add that I wasn't able (or didn't like to) dial in further other settings. All I did was bringing down the SFS of 430 and Q1 x Q1F of 30 x 30 to SFS=60 and 14 and 1 in order to have some more snap, while sure the higher settings did not sound muffled (which W7 tends to do). I couldn't try SFS=2 because of my other tweak, but I'm sure it would have worked out for the better.

Do notice that when in Normal OS Mode various other tweaks can't work, amongst that XTweaks. So, it is a large pile of apples and oranges in the first place. But point is : it works for its purpose (add noise) and the workout is as I "planned" it.

Watch out : Although everybody should try this, it should work out for the better only for those perceiving the "panning" problems in the first place. This is about a few people only (as how it looks). For the others I'd say, leave it as it is, but still it is easy to try and you may find it more "normal" at the same time. Do notice though that there is a difference between more normal and the actually f*cked up sound of W8 (which I described earlier as straining). So, f*cked up in the sense of too much boosted. Not easy to listen to. Tirering. Much detail, but too much of it. Try to see whether you also can perceive that RELIEF like I got it.

Anticipate other parameters to play a role suddenly, more than before. Could be Clock Resolution.

Strange tweak, don't we think ?

Peter

Do not forget : This is not only about Normal OS Mode, but also about NOT stopping the Remaning Services. Desktop Services yes.

That means that I can use the Windows Volume Slider to adjust the volume...is that a good thing?

Okay, a whole new start here where all settings indeed will have their influence again. Then better have latency as low as possible to start with as that seemed to sound better in the "old" days to start with...  :(

Bert

No ...
But what to do (but this sure must be looked into !).

After some minor hickups (stopped playing after a few seconds and such) and some rebooots things play okay now and... WOW!

Regardless that W slider I have to admit that this sounds 300% better to me. Piano has got its weight again...hell, everything got its weight back again and gone is that flattisch holding back "noisy" sound (W7 basically the same...).

F*ck those fake details... I even seem to have more real detail now but I need to listen more for some useful feedback!

Bert

EDIT: I do not have the feeling anymore to add some colouration to the system to make it sound nicer to the ears. Nothing wrong with these speakers!  :)

Hi Peter,

Just to be sure I understand...
- Normal OS
- Stop Desktop Services = yes
- Stop Remaining Services = no
- Lower SFS
- Lower Q1 and Q1 factor

I got it right ?

Alain

Alain, yes. And notice that the lower buffers etc. is just to "dial back in" the more snap from W8 as we learned it can be there. A bit of a mind thing I guess and undoubtedly depending on the music. Well, nothing much different from how we dealt with W7 I guess ...

Peter

I already removed that Windows Slider...  ;)

EDIT: Can be done by right-clicking the Windoes Volume Control (that little speaker icon) and go to options and turn off the audio devices related to the DAC there).

Bert

A general remark :

Nothing, really *nothing* is worse than faked detail; I have said it many times before : it is the most easy to dial-in by many means. But for your understanding : tweaking cross-overs the wrong way is one of these means, and it should tell you how things can be wrong, while initially it is perceived as better, just because of hearing more detail. But this is not true because all what happens is that the balance of the lot is shifted towards a wrong direction.

With too much detail things get profound like moving fingers over wound strings, spitting and other mouth noises, and in general we can say that the instrument falls apart; its initiating voice (like a string vibrating) gets detached from its body and although you'd still hear both, it doesn't fit anymore. So, this is not about the balance of the whole picture or stage, but the elements making music not being right anymore.
Remember what I talked about in one of the first posts : my wife not seeing the players anymore visualizing that by means of wanting to have the stage curtains open (while this was NOT about dull or blanketed sound at all !) and me at the same time not being able to see the stage anymore, but how the guitar grip was hold and played. Nice, really interesting, good for some change, but you loose the picture of the whole, while it *is* about the whole.
That in the mean time it is totally annoying (which is an unconscious thing) is the first indication that something has to be wrong.

Never EVER fall into that pitfall of being happy with too much detail. Don't ask me what experience it takes to know when too much detail is there, which of course also depends a lot on what your chain can unveal. But one clear measure exists : when suddenly half or more of your albums don't sound right anymore and you blame the recording. DON'T.

Peter


PS: About Bert's mentioned weight (which is the opposite of too detailed) : One of the albums I played yesterday was from Al Stewart. I know (just *know*) that all his creations lack weight. The guitar sounds too light though detailed. Well, what I heard yesterday was the best I ever heard from him. All in proper balance. This is how I find this W8 setting better than any W7 attempt. That it needs Normal OS and all the tweaking for the better not to be active is, well, embarrassing. So that is how I meant *that*.

When I listened XX with W8 for the first time I was amazed with the sound as I said in a post. I defined it as with a bass with weight (and detail), smooth, clear, delineated, even holographic and palpable sound.

My settings then were Normal OS due that I had no Activation code, the other settings I had, and have now, that I don´t have yet my new Activation code are the ones that I had in W7, but in this case:

- the Playback drive is in a USB 3.0 pendrive.

- Phasure Buffer Size: 8ms.

- Stop all Services, although I can see that stopping only the Deskstop services makes a little sweeter sound but less palpable. However I have to experience it with more time and careful listening.

- Q1=14, xQ1=1

- And the most important one: SFS: 2.0 I tested higher settings and there is no possible comparison with 2.0. SFS 2.0 is the way to go at least in my system as it was also with W7.

As I said with these settings the sound is the best one I ever heard: Palpable, realistic, holographic, reach, excellent soundstage and with the instruments and voices firmly placed in their positions. No strange or weird stereo image.

I´m going to play this way for a while before I ask for another Activation code to be sure that all is working fine.

Juan

Isn't this basically the same as playing MiniOS?

Bert

Following this thread the result will be:

In other words,
we will have two XXH versions in the future, one for W7 and one for W8.

see Peter's sig.

Joachim

No way ...

Had to go back to W7  due to the “small ball like soundstage” in the center (mono effect) and missing 3D room image. 
Now the soundstage and the resinous sound of the violin are back. (my listing SPL is well below 80dBA)

The abnormal SQ differences between W8 and W7 could be PC (built in 2010) related.
Under W8 with the "W7 Shell" installed, the boot manager was not working and an access to the BIOS was not possible anymore (on my PC).

Joachim

Joachim,

Did you check the windows 8 mixer (volumesliders)?

Regards, Coen

Ahhhh, it makes me want to give up on computer audio altogether. I'm half serious too.

But the guys who like W8 in Normal OS are right - the sound is way more relaxed and listenable than in Min OS.

I also just compared W7 (with my old settings, which I was quite happy with) to W8 and I prefer W8 in Normal OS. The latter seems at least as detailed as W7, but more natural and less annoying.

So is the conclusion that stripping an OS down to a bare minimum is detrimental to SQ (because noise is not as well randomized)?

:grazy:

Mani.

Hi Coen,

no, it's too late now.

Joachim

Hi Mani,

the conclusion with the experience of all participants of this thread is, Peter has to program/modify an OS destined for XXH only to get a consisted basis for future (next 10 years)upgrades.

Joachim

P.S. I will not give up Computer Audio since W7 is supported until 2020, but I have to buy a new Audio PC soonest.

I finally got my special "tweak" running again under Minimized OS so I could compare;
I tried Normal OS with Remaining Services stopped and without real listening and again sitting in front of the right speaker I as not sure whether I heard "some" of the strangeness back. However, with the same settings in Minimized for sure they are. This most weird image just in the middle between the speakers while sitting in front of the right one.
The stupid thing is that this sounds so interesting with again that "wow" effect. Okay, talked about that sufficiently enough by now.

Will see tonight how Normal OS sounds with Remaining Services shut off and compare with those remained on.

Peter

Bert, I don't understand what you mean. In Normal OS, the vol slider continues to work no matter what (see below). Exactly what did you do to deactivate it?

Mani.

Now this is just too much. I have start-up sound switched off (see below). I have the volume control set to 100% because I want to control the volume in XX.

AND I GET THE BLOODY START-UP SOUND!!!!!!!!

Let me tell you, it's not nice coming through 114dB/W speakers!

Bloody W8!

Mani.

I hate it too when these things happen... :( I am always afraid of burning something...

I think it comes with the Explorer7 to W8... Not heard when in Minimize OS, but heard in Normal OS mode. I had the surprise too, but my volume was low when it occurred...

Alain

I learnt to appoint a MoBo sound device as the default. No amps connected to that ...

My bad... you should not right-click but left-click and open the mixer. In the mixer click on the device and then more options will show. You can turn of the device there (selection at the bottom).

See picture (in Dutch and not even showing the NOS1 but the principle is the same and should explain).

Bert

Mani, I hate it when that happnes!!!!! Not today but in the past it's happened 2x to me. Felt like a heart attack...

Joachim, I don't think the SQ differences between 7 and 8 are PC build related. I put mine together in April or may, 2012, and even with the latest 8 tweak, only desktop services off, the difference between them in my system remain substantial. In my system, the accuracy and transparent naturalness  of 7 is stunning--then add in the incredible pin- point though holographic sound stage and W8 doesn't come close (having only desktop services off is a huge W8 improvement.)  For the first time today after I applied the latest W8 tweak, I heard the difference in the sound stage bewteen the two OS's. Vocals in W8 are just too huge and puffy sounding!

Personally, I'm glad for the arrival of W8 and what it has meant  for the analysis between us of good sound via XX. It's times like these, when every log partially submerges when you step on it and feet inevitably get wet, that things are both frustrating and exciting. It's usualluy a sign of breakthrough being somewhere around the next corner. For me, I love being on the very cutting edge of computor audio and, because the actual experience of the wonderful sounds of music has so very far outweighed the few rough patches, I look forward to the "work' and can't wait to see whatever it is that lurks out there, around that corner. Time boys, gotta do the work and let it pass. It's worked so well so far. :)
 

YES, I remember that one too (several times!!!).

My average heartbeat per minute is still 5 beats higher than usual!

Just turning off Windows sounds does not help, you should mute it completely!

Bert

Yeah, but I'm getting into listening to Spotify and internet radio through the NOS1. This allows me to totally remove the preamp from the chain (in my office system), which is great. I'd really prefer not to have to continuously change sound devices.


Thanks Bert. At least this will help with heart attack prevention. But again, I'll have to keep switching this on/off when I want to listen to Spotify or internet radio (I assume).

If the bloody start-up sound on/off option would actually work everything would be fine.

Mani.

This won't ne worth much, but I think is worth while mentioning :

Yesterday at testing my new "tweak" for Minimized OS and underway of it (finally) working now, I told in a previous post about that strange effect I readily heard at sitting in front of the right speaker. Later I was in Normal OS and for the life of me couldn't find the track anymore where it happened. I thought I knew which one it was though. And yes, later again in Minimized it sure was "that" track. This is what I heard :

Nicely in the middle of the speakers, say 1 meter from the sealing, there was this background choir singing (a few ladies). As loud as the remainder of the music. I perceived the effect as strange because the sound was some 60 degrees to the left of me (sit in front of the right speaker and twist your head to see where the sound is) and merely it has a strange inverted phase kind of sound. Btw, notice that placement of sound in space from two speakes work with phase manipulation (investigate Q sound);

The point is : In Normal OS this little choir was nowhere ! Just NOT. And well, we (or I) can dedicate too much detail to it all, but a complete (though little  :)) choir missing ...

Then I promised to compare Normal OS with all services shut down to Normal OS with all running;

It didn't come to that. I started out with listening to Minimized (and all shut off) and although I had the idea that things had improved perhaps (I had changed things) after one album I gave up.
I went back to Normal OS, but left alll services to be shut off;  I couldnt do this before in my situation or at least not to the extend I could now. The result ? not satisfied. Bearable  compared to Minimized, but I've heard better. No strange effects, image seemed OK, but too hard-grey. No dark background. No fat guitars; too much high frequency in them.

That's where I ran out of time and stopped.

Peter

@mani (manisandher)

Win8 Startup Sound - it seems this is some kind of 'bug' in Win8 or perhaps some (hidden) administrator account can really disable it.
I did same as Peter did, in my case just defined motherboard's S/PDIF out as my default audio device - never used/connected of course.

In your case it's not right solution, perhaps this will do the job:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/6cde20/turn-off-windows-startup-sound-in-windows-8/

Will try it myself later today, first need to replace OS HDD, found several bad sectors developed on it :(

Brgds,
George

Thanks George. It definitely disables the option of turning the start-up sound on/off (see below - check box is now greyed out and inactive).

BUT EVEN THIS DOESN'T STOP THE BLOODY START-UP SOUND!!!

Bert's suggestion of muting the applications' sound seems to work, though I still get a loud tick on start-up and don't fully trust it. Peter's suggestion is sure fire, but means changing sound devices from time to time.

Mani.

This tick isn't that the static tick coming from the DAC (like a capacitor unloading)? Because thát tick has nothing to do with software...

Bert

... which isn't capacitor unloading, but DC changing. Happens once in the XX times (the PC not controlling USB correctly) ...

But undoubtedly Mani will know about this particular tick.

Peter

Probably not but it sounds like that, like a "spark".

Bert

No, it's got nothing to do with the NOS1 or XX - I never had this issue with W7.

Edit: To make it clear, I know there's a tick when the NOS1 is switched on. But I leave it on always, unless I need to disconnect it altogether from the system for whatever reason.

I've just tried a cold reboot now and there wasn't any sound at all. So it seems a bit temperamental - even worse from a heart attack perspective.

Mani.

Peter, so far I was testing the sound using an external hdd as Music Root. The sound is as described previously, clear, holographic, well positioned etc. Today I changed the Music Root to a partition in the same hdd where is also XX and the OS and the sound I perceive is very different, mostly because it is very hard to find the exact position of the voices and instruments, I guess that it is the effect you were describing. I makes me think if the place where the Music Root is (in an external hdd or not) has some influence in that effect.

So far I´m using an external USB 3.0 as Playback Drive but I´m going to test the Playback Drive in a RAMDisk placed in a partition in the same hdd where is also XX and the OS and see what happens. I´ll test the Playback Drive also in an external hdd as I have it in W7.

It seems to me that not only if the Services are on or off has an important influence in SQ but also how and where resides the music, the Playback Drive, the Galleries (in case they are used), etc. and that influence is different than the one in W7.  It seems obvious but it requires a whole work of test to be done again.

Juan

Yes Juan. A LOT of work ...


But this seems impossible to me. :)
If you don't understand what I mean it was not a typo. ;)

Regards,
Peter

PS:
In the mean time I'm, deliberately working on making it *worse* (again less noise from the OS). One never knows what will happen, is my motto. But it also may proove some things ...

Sorry Peter but I don´t understand...what I wanted to say is that I´m going to create a RAMDisk in the same hdd where XX and W8 are and use is as Playback Drive. What´s wrong with it?(besides my English of course  :()

Juan

Ok, sorry I understand, the RAMDisck goes to memory.

I forget very often the technical issues, fortunately I have some mysterious help that reminds me all these things.

Regards,
Juan

Would you mind sharing the name and source of that specific track?

Bert

Pfoe, Win 8 and XXHE running a little better.
Sound is now possible through the motherboardconnectors.
Firewire and USB-HiFace not working yet.
So I'm listening now in Wasapi-style with portable(?!) headphones.
TDK WR700 really nice sound for little. (Wireless I should say, being tied to a wire is not my thing :( ).
Hope to get the others working too.
Solution looks to be related to hard reboot being different now and maybe sleep/hybernate. Some settings maybe only change after a reboot???

@mani

Just now finished fresh Win8 installation, have found the source of 'problem' with always active Win Startup Sound:
It's Windows 7 Explorer for Win8. Don't know if question/message about this to Tihiy (Ex7forW8 author) would help?

Now thinking of booting PC w/ Linux live CD and deleting original wave file(s) or editing them into silence? :scratching:
There are two instances under \Media folder, both protected system files.

Reporting further.



 

OK, annoying (& loud) startup sound solved - with brute force  :smile:

Booted into Ubuntu (Live CD) went into Windows directory and simply renamed two wav files 'Windows Logon.wav'.
Perhaps it's enough to rename first file only (found in :\Windows\Media sub-dir) but it's time to install XXHE, not booting Linux twice :)
Second file was found in foll dir:
:\Windows\WinSxS\amd64_microsoft-windows-shell-sounds_31bf3856ad364e35_6.2.9200.16384_none_6fdc23973f4dcd1e

:drinks:

Glad to hear you are making it worse.  Really.  Losing small choirs means to me it's not time yet to start using more noise to eliminate a sonic signature.  Right now that's just dithering around.  (My apologies - I do so love really horrible puns.)

Couple of ideas I haven't had time to try yet:

- If there's something weird going on with phase effects, how do things sound with adjustments to, or elimination of, phase alignment?

- How do XXTweaks affect system noise levels?  In particular, do tweaks like Balanced Load and Utilize Cores Always result in more system activity than there would otherwise be?  I suppose turning off Cool When Idle has got to lead to more thermal noise, but is it enough to have any effect?

Air - Cherries - Track 5, Alpha Beta Gaga.
http://www.discogs.com/AIR-Cherries/release/265923

Do notice that Air, in general, exhibits all there is to exhibit from W8 anyway. No comparison with W7.
If you play this at -39dB (that's 7 bits less) like I did, it is plainly nothing less than superb.

Peter

Thanks, will have a listen eventhough -39dB is about 9dB less loud than at your place.

Bert

It's some 15 dB less loud than what I'm used to.
But new info will pop up tomorrow ...

:)
Peter

Let me pop in before you ;)
Got everything working in 8.
Installed realtek motherboard codec drivers and restart made terratec work again. HiFace needed some 12V batteryjuice for the DAC which was gotten loose by all the moving around.
Sound? Incredible!
Listening to Anthony now, never liked it but now it's wonderfull.
Stereo picture reminds me of vinyl records that sometimes do strange things to the room, so I guess it's in the recording and now you can hear it.
Only not properly activated and sometimes the music skips some notes. But now on to enjoy some more!

A bumpy LP can do that too !

Thank you for sharing Gerard. And good that you held on to it.
Peter

So, here is my "pop up" :

Sound is now plainly nothing less than superb.
Do you hear ? :grazy:

Look at my sig as per the 5th of February 2013 and notice the ** denotations, indicating which parameters were changed compared to my previous settings (like I do it always with these **).
Yep, including SFS=2, meaning : I just tried that to be on the most nasty side possible, but it is not nasty. Not anymore and not at all. Never tried higher as of now.

Experience is from two evenings of listening. Could be too short to be 100% conclusive, but no way there's this aggressive sound anymore.

If I try hard I see the image maybe somewhat more towards the speakers, but no way it is coming from the plane of the speakers anymore.

Supposed I managed to dial in settings which are the best, but beter said : compare with W7 in general for best settings, then W8 is enormously better. It shows :

- More low *and* more tight bass (this combination is dangerous, that's why the *and*);
- Super square sound where it's intended without any spur of fatigue;
- Much more stereo and actually what we talk about all the time in here, but :
- The image is not strange anymore. L/R sweeps are there while not there at all in W7.
- Dark background is back.


With my settings (see sig) I think there's a tad too much metal in cymbals; it brings a general flavor to all the tracks of one album (not really disturbing but any flavor actually is or should be disturbing). Notice that the more severe case gives a same flavor to all albums which I think is not the case.

As a result of the too much metal, cymbals seem all too small. This should go away with higher buffer settings.

Summarized, I'd dare say that the sound now is *less* harsh then with W7 (if that was harsh in the first place, but just for comparison).

Peter

Peter,

Removed switching supplies from everywhere ? You are not also talking about the PSU inside the PC ?  :o

You are not making it work with wax candles are you ?  :grazy:

Alain

Thanks...

Mmm 2 RAMdisks! And XX playing from one of them....

This will be a bit more complex to have that loaded automatically at startup using a batch-file.

O well, if the sound is okay then I'll just have to create it like that.  ;)

Thanks for the tips.

Fine. But how did I achieve this ?

First off, as promised I made the OS even less noisy. Should be better from theory anyway, up to some extend perhaps (see my "randomize noise" subject I sometimes talk about).
A new XXHighEnd version is needed for this, and by itself it is good to go. But, I want to change a few more things first.

Notice that I am not sure whether the above helped by itself. It should be counterproductive and make it worse. But :
Since my time for listening and comparing is virtually zero, I did not sort out which causes what. So, I did more things at the same time, and the above was done because it's just the general "progressing" for XXhighEnd and so far it always led to the better sound. It is important not to miss that I did not take the route of more noise, which seemed to be the solution to this all, as suggested earlier in the topic.

Then I changed my only disk in the system from a SATAIII connection to a SATAIII connection om another chip. This latter is merely by accident, but it could be important that I had to change a BIOS setting to let this work and which is not advised by the Motherboard. Think like a message "Do you want to set this anyway ?" and you know enough. This is about some chip (did not sort it out) which by default does not allow a bootable disk to be there. So, SATAIII, but not bootable (I never heard of it before, but alas).
May it be important : this chip will be something about EMedia.

In the mean time I most probably found the worst mistake "Mr NOISE" (who should be me) can make : I had a switching power supply in the mains ring (separately earthed) of my audio system. This went a bit unnoticed because the two audio PCs I use now are in this same ring, while the "XXHighEnd PC" was connected to that via an extension block. All still OK because of the PC noise which is lead away via USB (and the NOS1), but not okay for the monitor('s switching PSU) I also plugged in there. Looks harmless because "PC gear", but not quite the situation for my W7 Audio PC where the monitor is in the normal house ring.

See below how the noise of a switching PSU can look like, which in this case is from a laptop and when in a separate earthed ring is harmless. This is 40mV of noise, while virtually nothing (a few uV) should show.
I now envision this "switching" sound from Left and Right which I almost literally described like switching, earlier in the topic.

But where does this leave us all ?

First off, it is clear that reports about the SQ of W8 were inconsistent. Maybe it is good I made this mistake (and assumed it really is the most of the culprit) so people could learn about this strange sound.
Important : I used the exact same switching PSU in the same extension box for the W7 install on the very same machine. It did NOT bother me. At least not that I noticed.

It should now be so that those experiencing this same strange sound, are subject to a similar situation. So, find your switching PSUs in the audio mains ring, plug them elsewhere and done.

Yea ?

I'm afraid not. Not, because not everybody will be able to do this, for the sheer stupid reason of not having a separately earthed mains ring. BUT, I actually do not even know that this is about earth influence, but it can be expected. Anyway for those without separately earthed rings, you can always try that other house ring (which you will have for sure);
When the only switching PSU you really can't get rid of is your monitor's PSU you can always pull the plug (from the wall !!) and try whether it indeed is your culprit. If so, you can see further what to do.

Outside the above, I think it may be quite difficult for us all comparing apples to apples, while W8 suddenly unveils this sh*t. I don't think you need a new XXHighEnd version to go on route and find your switching PSU's, while OTOH for most it should be so that they are out already. But still, even with me this was not so ...

One more thing for those who don't know it :
The PC, containing a swithcing PSU itself, should be on the same earth (ring) as your audio gear. This does not seem so logical, but it is so. BUT, while this counts for NOS1 users for sure (and/but how I can derive things from my own situation which should be general though not 100% sure) it *should* be the same for everyone, assuming there's an electrical connection between the PC and the stereo. To this I must add that USB is special and might work out differently than coax/SPDIF, which I don't know. Also, with Toslink/SPDIF there *is* no connection, and now it is better to have the PC on a different earth.

Peter


PS: And then to think that only during this writing I think of me now having TWO PCs connected to the audio (earth) ring, while one of them is not connected to the noise guiding away means at least the NOS1 takes care of. Will SQ improve when I change that ?
Maybe. But I only tell you this because it is so easy to overlook something ...

Hi Peter, congratulations for your sound. Would you please explain certain things that I don´t understand in your signature?. Sorry if you already have explained part or the whole of it before, in such a case please drive me where the information is. Things are getting more and more complicated with W8, now even with the power supply. What I´d like to know for now as detailed as possible is:

- XX on 1GB RAMDisk (IMDisk). How to create that RAMDisk (IMDisk). What is IMDisk?. So far XX was in the same drive than the OS.

- music through WiFi somewhere and somehow. So far WiFi was prohibited due to interference. Please could you explain it further?. How do you receive the music and how you manage the music you receive by WiFi?.

-  Minimize OS. So, definitively you use Minimize OS?.

Regards,
Juan

Ha ha maybe my ears are OK after all I just dug out the text of an email I sent to Nick recently about W8.

"Windows 8 here is the clear winner - by a country mile. I went back to 7 the other day and could not believe the difference 7 sounded confused and lacking in clarity. Which was a surprise as I was more than happy with it before. BUT I find that 8 needs real care and attention to get the sound right. By care and attention I mean that it is incredibly revealing. The smallest changes are easily audible. If I had not removed all fans and switched everything off that can be switched off then I may well have a very different impression of 8. As it is though I am hearing the clearest most delineated sound I have heard anywhere. There is a natural roundness to the sound that is very lifelike.  And unlike the posts about sound stage mine has improved and is more "outside the speakers" however some of that may be down to my new "friends" - see links below.

The sound stage in W8 is better than 7 in that I can clearly here things I could not hear before - the smallest sounds are separated out and can be heard clearly.

I am the biggest skeptic about the latency settings. Big latency just does not sound right to me - it seems to smudge over things and seems to be a fix that covers other problems and ameliorates edge in the sound (I know that is probably the opposite to what we would expect technically) . I have to say though at SFS=2 there is a slight edge to the sound but it really does sound to me as though it is not W8 or XX producing the hardness it is probably the computer or electrically added edge to the sound - after all we cannot get rid of everything i.e. the mobo ha ha. Of course that is only a guess. Who knows?

But anyway there is no going back to 7 my ears tell me that 8 sounds stunning."

Good to know that my VERY OLD (before Mani says that!) ears have not let me down.

By the way I do have a separate mains supply with balanced transformer.

Cheers

Paul

Juan,


This should be of not much importance for anyone. In my case it is though because I only have the OS disk in there and, say, I don't want it spinning. This is part of a far larger project.
If you want a RAMDisk, just use what you are used to. This one works too but with more hassle. Or maybe not. Anyway I regard it not important *for you*.


You're too early. I put it in my sig like that for a reason. Still I need to mention it because it is my consistent situation and it may matter. This is only proven when you all can't get it done, while I now can. Notice though that I have this way of working for a longer time, and it didn't help a thing.
It is part of the same project as from your first quote above.
When it is time and ready, I will express about it of course.
Of course to me it proves some other way around (and what you actually ask about) : it is harmless. But don't think you can now just start using WiFi. What I do is quite (ehm, very) special, has not been done before and officially can't work.


Definitely.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter

Juan

Hey Paul. Thanks for sharing this. But aren't your ears somewhat bigger than average ? say like mine ?
hahahaha
Tried to find a smiley for it, and came up with this one :

Re signature W8: Cool when idle = 1 ????

Thank you!


Not completely understanding.  Right now I have XXHE, the OS, and Galleries on a SATAIII SSD.  I suppose having the SSD is a bit like having a RAMdisk, but when it's time, please let us know if it makes a big difference whether these things are on RAMdisks or on an SSD (or together or apart).


Yes, unplugging SMPSs is what the fellow I've gotten my cables from for years (and about whom I PMed you in connection with the feet) has always advised.  He too, with his partner, actually tests all this stuff, so no matter how far out it seems, he has the measurements and the listening sessions to back it all up.


Interesting - is that because of USB's included power leg?  Wonder how battery and/or linear supplies might play into this (though there we are talking either money for such a supply for a desktop, or laptops)?

Yes Leo. I talked about that a few times;
Windows 8 behaves strange with =0. Also see here : XTweaks : Cool when Idle and Windows 8 (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2442.0).

Peter

Hi Paul,

In your signature you have this:  PA=ON *-ve*. What does that -ve mean?.

Do you have actualized your signature, don´t you have stops?. I ask it because you have the same processor/configuration as me.

Regards,
Juan

For now : No way an SSD is or behaves (or sounds) similar to normal RAM.


USB is hard to understand; By now I forgot the exact setup how to see/measure, but think like this :
In the NOS1 there's an USB display. Initially we thought to power this by USB power. Nicely convenient, especially knowing that no 5V supply is in the NOS1; we could not get it to work, unless it created DC offset (which is very specially setup in then NOS1 anyway and the reason why it happened in the first place). Then we found that once USB was powering this display and with the notice it is completely isolated from everything, we could measure 5V DC from ANY connection, be that the plus from XLR, the minus from XLR or signal ground to PE (Protective Earth). To me this said something like "and thus all three should be connected". But they were not, obviously. What it next told me is that USB creates 5V DC on PE anyway. Well, at least this happened with the isolated display. 5V DC on PE means 5V DC on the Neutral. 5V DC on the Neutral means a not so nice sine on your mains. 5V DC on our Neutral at 230V mains a more nice sine than 5V DC on your 115V mains.

Are we getting somewhere ?
It is all one big pile of sh*t.

What NOS1 users will know is that switching off the PC (reboot it) *may* incur for DC offset on the NOS1 (there are meters for that on it). Whether this really happens depends on ... I don't know. But since the NOS1 creates its near zero DC Offset from what I call a "mechanical balance" it will be about sudden *change* in DC Offset on the mains and next the balance is off and can't be restored. Oh, it will ... just switch on the PC again.
This is all very trickery stuff and for example, you can't pull the USB cable either. That too creates an imbalance, but this is logic (to me) because a ground is pulled away, or better, a groundLOOP is broken.

There's much much more about it (*and* written about in this forum) and for example and about how difficult it actually is to have all right for everybody : The NOS1-USB's predecessor had to use another "DC control" scheme (because no USB) and while this worked for 230V it dit not work at all for 115V. Now we're dealing with mains phase related stuff which also could exhibit in countries like the UK where they are able to setup the lot in 5 different ways nobody has heard of. But do notice that there are really many ways to get the 115V or 230V to you and that they are all different for (good) audio.
That in the US the plugs fall out already when you sneeze is not part of this, but also matters I think. Haha.

Lastly, it is really NO coincidence that out of all Paul may have it right. I mean, we both sort of inifinitely worked on getting noise out of his speakers - only because I was so foolish to tell him he could be without, but without knowing a thing of his house etc. IOW, Paul *really* worked on that and apparently in better fashion than I myself.
It is also NO coincidence that you see Paul writing to Nick whom I even worked more with because Nick has noise problems more than anyone else, and when he thinks he has all out of the way, he finds ... a transmission antenna at 30 miles distance hammering on all up to his washing machine.

These stories go on and on. I thought I had my things together. But I had not. It really is the most difficult subject ("mains") and the most hammering on SQ. Now it took W8 to point it out. At least that this the status as of now. But once you have it done, it is "lonely at the top". And mind you ... read that review from 6moons again. It took them 8 bloody months. But they are not ignorant, like we in here are not ignorant. Do we know how much time we spend on reinstalling OSes, try again, try all we didn't try before, build new PC's, detach drives and what not in the HOPE we can get somewhere ? That someone like me "ignorantly" continues on that other part of the OS possibly incurring for noise, only knowing months later when the task has been accomplished ?

What a hobby. But so much worth while.
Peter

OK, another question about RAMdisks, or rather, about random access memory:  Can anything (besides music - I'm thinking if it can be on an external USB3 drive, it can be on a USB3 stick) be on a USB3 stick, or is that just stupid even to think of?

(I know I have a lot of questions - this is the way I become when I get very interested in something, as I am in following along with you through these changes.  Feel free not to respond, because I will learn with everyone else in good time.  But if it is interesting to you to talk about this, then by all means....)

RAM as such can't be on a USB stick because it is ...
ehh ...

Well, an USB stick or SSD *are* "Random Access Memory" as such, but I'm afraid we are in another leage of "RAM" here. So yes, take that literally and be confused forever.

Although there's spades more to say about it, make it more easy for yourself and think about the "lanes" to get to these types of "RAM". So, and only for one example, there's 4 lane motherboards and RAM (allowing for parallel processing of 4 memory accesses) on one side and there's "SATA ports" needed for an SSD on the other (or USB for USB connected storage for that matter). These two are totally different in the noise impeding department and are way different on speed in another. That speed itself is also about noise could be looked at from oscillators needed to let it work (like for USB), or the high speed of the CPU itself. Oscillator = noise.

I can go on and on but I hope this shows how the both of RAM types can be different.
Additionally notice that the one is tweakable in another fashion than the other. For example, internal memory RAM can be set to speeds we like. So, while my memory and MoBo can work at the speed of 2333MHz, I have set it to 1333MHz. This is the normal (or default) speed and it can also be "underclocked" (to e.g. 800MHz). Thinking in noise terms this is not only about possibly creating less noise the lower the speed because of the "drive frequency", but also thermal noise which should be less (doubtful whether we can notice this for in-PC stuff) but more important in my view : resonances of noise differing; As you can imagine, a frequency of 1200 against 800 (both running at the same time) creating a mixed noise pattern which in this case will not be a complex frequency and THUS profound, is different from 1200 against 833 which will have a more complex pattern (does not recur so often) and is therefore mere "white".

Something like that ?
Peter

Yes, thanks!   :wtf:


Thanks for real, nice explanation.   :veryhappy:

Hey Juan - I have changed my signature I have PA on not invert hope its clear now.


Sorry don't understand (its been a hard day sigh!)

Paul

Paul, Juan asks whether you are drinking all day long.
Well, that's what I think.

:innocent:

But didn't you have a topic somewhere where you "complained" about stops ? That's what I recall. Maybe it was someone else. But then I :party:

OK, did a little reading on this RAMDisk thing.  (Hope this is not a distraction versus the many other things that are as or more important, but I did want to ask before moving on to those other things.)

Please tell me whether any of the following is wrongheaded or inadvisable:

- I'm supposing the RAMdisk with XXHE needs to be persistent across shutdown and should start up with Windows.

- Have 12GB of RAM.  One or two 1GB RAMdisks shouldn't constrain system memory, should it?

- Why two?  Thinking of copying music into one of the RAMdisks, or putting galleries there.  I wouldn't save the contents of a RAMDisk with full music files, though - would fill up far too quickly.  Galleries maybe - depends on size.  Would one larger RAMDisk or two smaller ones be better for this purpose (XXHE and galleries or music), or no difference?

- NTFS?

Thanks.

Hey Peter, am really puzzled why W7 sounds so much better here than W8. One thing I realized is that in W7 I never updated XXhighend past 9Z8d and in W8 I'm using 9Z 8-1a. Might this have something to do with it? The only other thing which might explain it is that I have spent months building and carefully installing, through trial and error, bass traps/absorption panels at reflection points (walls and ceiling--floor has heavy wall to wall carpet) and diffusors in my man-cave listening room on the 3rd floor. I mean the room has literally been tuned to my W7 version of 9Z-8d; seriously I'd put the sound I'm getting up against anything W8 puts out and W7 wins hands down. Will post some pics in the appropriate spot when I get a chance. I'd sure hate to have to start all over again on my room treatment project, but, of course, I will if it's for the better!

Hey Jud,


Not really. But it will be convenient. So, envision you changing settings in XXHE which now obviously go to the RAMDisk. Now you reboot without putting it all back and your changed settings are lost.


It will be OK, but will meet limits when the largest buffer sizes are to be used. It still may just go with 10GB. With 8GB (left) it won't. Use the smaller sizes and no problem is to be expected.


Both should be regarded "strange behavior";
Copying music is provided by the Playback Drive when a separate RAMDisk is made for that, or otherwise goes to the RAMDisk where XX sits when you denote "Copy to XX Drive always".
Putting Galleries there can't be a general good solution, since e.g. mine are 90GB. You can just use them from whereever they are now. Don't look at my sig though (not using them at all currently), which is not representative for any normal situation.


If you use two of them like I do, this serves the explicit purpose of the Playback Drive and it not interfering with anything else. I just follow that rule because it's easy to setup, and I never checked it for SQ merits. To test this, use a RAMDisk for Playback Drive vs mentioned Copy to XX Drive Always.
Theoretically the Playback Drive should be for the better, because it still follows some (secret) rules which won't be applied to being within the XX RAMDisk. So, memory = memory, but applied rules are not the same.


This I don't know as it *can* depend on the RAMDisk software used. For what we all used before it didn't matter a thing (it was ignored as far as I could tell). For this IMDisk I am using I did not test it.

Hope this helps.
Peter

Thanks Peter, that helps a lot.  I guess I will probably be wanting more RAM then (probably 24GB as 3x8).

Here's something I thought of after posting above, just to drive everyone crazy: So when using a RAMdisk as a playback drive, how would block ("sector") size on the RAMdisk interact with SFS, etc., for sound quality, if at all?

It will or should. But this is exactly what I tested with that tool we all used before, and it wasn't influenceable. Like "ignored". So, you can format it like you want, but there wasn't a single difference in performance (tests). This tells me something.

With IMDisk I should test this just the same, just in case it matters here, because then it should be explicity addressed.

Peter

Hi Boleary,

Room treatment is related to acoustics. A simple definition is "acoustics deals with what sound does in a room" (see "Acoustic Design For Home Studios" by Mitch Gallagher, chapter 1)

The room treatment is the physical basis (controlling reflections and reverberation, bass traps etc) for a superb sound.

Joachim

Well , I am trying to understand how to "build 2" ramdisk(s)(dataram) . Superb sound by the way ,with the "ram" folder , but seems the system is not allowed to minimize for now . It says contat Phasure for that ... mmmmh

s

Edit , it looks like , from the support page , that with RAMdisk (dataram) only one instance is possible .

I have just put on Gilles Peterson "Havana Cultura" an old fave that I have not heard for a while. OH WOW does it sound good via W8. A singer standing in front of me, instruments spread around my conservatory (behind the speakers). Sounds popping out of the air, I hear voices and look around to see who is calling - the imaging is by far the best I have ever heard. The little strands of music that I could not hear before, the absolute clarity of the human singing is breath taking.

Crikey

 :)

But I know it can be improved further - there is just a hint of edge so back to work - but just for now I would rather listen to music.

ARrrrggh forgot to switch the network have now that's better

Well from now ready with 2 Ram disks . One of them is im disk ....

Yeah I remember that aswell :-)

To put another variable in the equation ...
hahahaha
Oh boy.

Of course , dataram ramdisk already uninstalled . The difference is that dataram was seen as a pen drive ( don't know if that was selectable ) . But it looks imdisk(s) are much faster .

jajajaja
oh lady .

Quick question:

Doesn't seem the 24GB is economically priced.  16GB is, which should be enough.

Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 1600 is on sale at Newegg for $90 ($20 off).  Timing is 8-8-8-24.

There are also Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600 for $5 more at 10-10-10-27, and G. Skill 16GB DDR3 1600 again for $90 at 10-10-10-30.

The speed isn't critical.  Could probably raise or lower it a little, depending on the CPU speed, in accordance with Peter's non-resonance theories.

I would think to the extent there's anything to choose between these, the lower latency (8-8-8-24) might be better.  Some people, I've found, don't particularly like Crucial, though I've had it and it's been fine.

Any thoughts (particularly Peter, if you have any experience with memory latency numbers as they affect sound)?

Well for now listening in attended . Where do I go from there ? All services off ? Just desktop?
Try going in Minimized os?

thanks in advance

s

You are not alone. There are very few posters here with a superb win8 sound and it took them some work to get it going.

I just started with this, but my win7 sound is miles ahead of win 8. I guess in some way we all tuned our systems to win 7 in the past year. I do believe though that this will not explain the difference in experience.

Apparently the powersupply and grounding play even a bigger role with the new os.

Anyway what I am hearing here with win8 is an unnatural appearance and disapearance of tones (attack and decay). As a result the sounds are a little thick and restrained and it all does not blend into a musical performance. However the timbre and separation of instruments are traits that could complement my win7 sound. Furthermore I percieve a "loudness" or "disco" effect being a little bass and top heavy. This while it actually seems to sound less loud....

I've tried a truckload of settings to get closer to the sound magic of win7, I am afraid I have to look elswere (pc? Grounding? Supplylines?).

Regards,Coen

The actual problem with W8 (imo) is that its sound goodness last very little if I just *touch* something . Then it becomes pretty unlistenable after a while . Don't know . Its better performances for me remains in attended for now .
One ram disk , one playback folder ( hdd ) and so .

Lots of work .

cheers 

That's what i thought to hear too at the start.
Now it sounds more, very neutral. I guess because I use Peter's settings now. To early to give 100% thumbs up because I need a lot more listening. But I feel there is a lot of uncertainty/jitter/noise gone and now it's more precise and detailed. It remembers me of the time I was chasing an unbalance between the left end right speaker only to find it was the difference in acoustic surroundings of the left and right speaker. Nothing can be done in my present living room sadly. This was using vinyl. Now with XXHE/Win 8 I get the same acoustic information again.

So for me Win8 is a winner!
( I have to apoligize to the MS-programmers for my bad words because now they did something very good for us)

Thanks Coen. I think your description very well describes what I'm hearing too.

The same magic works for me too ! :) As a new NOS1 user, I am very happy to finally be able to unveil all I have been missing with my previous OS dac !

And W8 is here to stay too... Until W9-10-11-12... ;)

Alain

Day before yesterday I moved my second PC on the audio mains ring to another ring (see earlier post where I found this to be a theoretical culprit). Listened two evenings to this and never got back my happiness about the sound. Thus far I refused to put back that PC on the audio ring.

Then last night it did not sound good at all anymore. Next I found that the W8 PC was consuming 4.6GB of memory without any reason (XXEngine3 killed). After a reboot it was 1.1GB again. The PC had been up for 3 days. Btw, both memory usages are including 3GB of RAMDisk which is not reported as "consumed". I wonder whether this by itself is OK but it doesn't look so to me.
So there's a "memory leak" as how we called it.
Somewhere the past two weeks I read about someone who was sure that W8 needs a reboot after a while ?

After the above sound was OK but it tempted me to think to give up on this whole sh*t. It was not an annoying sound, but also nothing to write home about.

Will put back that PC on the audio ring and try again tonight. But if it now is so much about these things, it is out of control.


I applied a few tricks to W8 which I wil now try to apply to W7 as well. I'm sure a few people will be happy about that. I could be amnongst those. Grrrrrr.

Peter

What if we (maybe all) put both feet back on the floor and look at this all from a somewhat different angle;

For me, personally, and in the stage as it is in right now, there is nothing that I can find wrong with XXHighEnd and W7.
Notice that this is different from "can it be better ?". We always think it can't but always notice it could. Afterwards. It is a matter of let time pass by, and when you or anyone else or me myself comes up with whatever it takes.
But wrong up to dead-wrong ? This is a loooong time ago that that happened.

So for some stupid cold reason (btw, how's the snow up there today ? any power left ?) we are using a new OS and find ourselves in all kinds of sh*t. Only occasionally it works out for the better, but even then it is doubtful whether it is without annoyances. So keep in mind : I said a few days back that sound was superb - it really was so, but in the mean time I have complaints about cymbals and a flavor to the sound. Not good, and actually the worst were it about NOS1 users who should receive a totally neutral sound. And beware, the fact that e.g. Paul seems to have it done all the way, does not tell me whether he even knows what "100% neutral" is. And so FYI : anyone with an oversampling DAC just can-not perceive that ever. But do they complain ? no. They won't even know what I am talking about. And this is how all is so relative.

In short, Brian, no. If it takes you so much time to build the room around the software, it will look similar to my own activities. Consumes all of your time, without knowing the result and with a fair chance that each other day you will find yourself with different conclusions. And whatfore ? well, because we think we may perceive a better SQ again, while we were totally happy. At least I was. It's only seeking for troubles.

Mind you, all we talk about is "hey, I hear many more things in that track compared to before !". Yea ? so what. Don't try it and you won't know. Let the Pauls rave. Maybe at some stage we see that well over 50% raves - that could be the day to try again. Maybe it needs an SP1 first. Remember the W7 RTM days ? same story. We needed RAMDisk sh*t and what not to get something for the better while afterwards it appeared all moot because W7 RTM wasn't right. Back to Vista and what we all didn't try.

Hey, I see the same happening here. A total waste of time on something which inherently is wrong. It has to be.
The Pauls can go ahead if they like. Nothing wrong with that. He himself is allowed to be right just the same. This whole d*mn thing seems to be related to noise influence. Well, have that right by accident and you *are* right.
But by accident ?


PS: Paul, this is nothing about you and/or you being wrong by any means. I hope this is clear !

Well , a couple of nights ago I did try to put the W8 sound in my non-feedback class A depletion mode amp and high efficiency drivers , and it was total s++t , flat and boring . For sure . Then for the case I wanted to go for an Ubuntu computer based on Oss sound , well it was at least 10 times better allover .

Lets go figure ... ?

And yes , I am not into NOS for now , but I did a lot in the past , somehow *know* what I am missing , but that's kind of a different story from what we are experiencing these days .

Well, everybody may think about this as he likes, may find whatever "scientific" papers he likes ... if you only know that I totally disagree. It would be the very first thing to DESTROY your measure on how your system behaves.

I won't say that treating the room isn't good to get sound to perfection, but I do say that it is the most wrong thing to do to judge your system for behavior in the base.
Although I must have said it a 100 times, you may have missed that it is my sheer measure to get rid of any single standing wave (low frequency *and* high frequency) up to any most difficult corner in the room. And so I don't use any room treatment, rather have curtains open than closed, and no XXHighEnd or driver or whatever will go out when I suddenly perceive *any* anomaly regarding this.

And for your further information and about OS DACs (see previous post) : No way any OS DAC will behave even the slightest regarding this.

So please get the merits of this;
Would I have treated my room to get rid of anomalies that way, I would not be able at all to judge this. However, since I am able to get rid of even the slighest anomaly without any treatment, what do you think will happen to the sound when treatment was there ?
Would it improve sound ? or would it perhaps kill (absorb) things which were there without treatment ?

Pick your choice.

Btw, it is not as simple as this of course. So only read about my "I rather have curtains open than closed" and see that this is "treatment" as such just the same. But starting out with treatment would be as wrong as starting out with cables which filter harshness and next hook up your beautiful new DAC.

Is this clear a little ?
Peter


PS: And do notice that no scientific research and/or report will use my way as a base. This is because it isn't recognized and obviously because I am the only or first to approach it like this. I could also say : or do we think that this research used XXHighEnd and more ? I don't think so. And when they don't, do we think it all won't matter ?
No answer needed to that, I hope.

Although it is not all apples and apples, this is how I can only *think* W8 is for the better with less noise and stuff. So please notice that I use my means to judge it which is not physically measuring; My stories may be nice and try to seek consistency in what is happening, but obviously I only try to find that "match". I can do it (make it consistent) but this sure does not mean it is correct.

Instead of saying that the noise from W8 is so low that all external noise becomes profound, I better go the route of : W8 carries noise at frequencies which accidentally resonate in a nasty way with switching supplies and more stuff. This "accidentally" is what I like, because it justifies
a. the very different perceptions of everybody;
b. the change from day 1 to day 2.
And that it would fit a theoretically bad influencing PC on the audio mains ring which influence seems for the better, fits this as well.

But then again I am only trying to make it consistent and so it is yet another blahblah story.

I have never ever had so many difficulties with finding the right story. Worse, usually story number 1 always has been the best. Now look back at post #1 of this topic. What does it say ? "I don't know". Literally and in the first line. It was not pre-cooked to post number 251 we're at now. But still no clue ? Then better stick to that post #1 is always the best.

I don't know.
And I hate that.

Not me. I usually workout these things from stupid (my own) theories and next they should work. You can read this as : and now it is up to you all whether the theories worked out.

With this memory I apply some theory too, but this is to the "XXHighEnd PC" and is thus very dedicated to that. So, I worked that out once (say 8 months back) and now I don't know anymore. What I recall is that it's not just about looking at the latency numbers, but take into account the memory frequency applied where the latency (figures) are different, and now try to fit all as good as possible in the clock cycles.
It needs a bit of diving into the matters, but is is not all that difficult. What *is* difficult is anticipating on what you will do later with the frequency, whether it is ever possible for the PC in order and how you e.g. can end up with 2133 memory which is applied to 1600 only.

Blabla.
Sorry !
Peter

Peter,

Each time I perceive something different at two different times, I wonder which one is the best, but as I ask myself that question, I know I can't really answer.

What eludes me is how can a company like MS start coding in a way that would allow a Windows version to be more sensitive to PC noise, power noise, noise noise... ? What would be the purpose of this ?

Alain

Nah Alain, that is too much of a simple approach I think;

This now anticipates my last "reasoning" while my first is also still there. So, the first reasoning (attempt) tells that W8 exhibits so few noise that all other gets profound. When this applies, MS worked it out for the better. Right ?
Maybe not for workable result, but this would merely be our fault.

But then I don't think it is to be looked at this like this at all. Look :

On the whole globe, I see that there is ONE guy who really knows what this is all about, and he learned that after me. Not from me, thus by himself, but after me. So, it was me who started this whole subject and the rest is copying it. You can well see the tweaks and players which are there now - and they all sprung from XXHighEnd (users). This includes Audirvana+ on the Mac. But they are copying behavior and don't really know. Well, let's say like the stage I am in right now with W8. But remember, apart from ONE guy. And this guy is ...

The very same guy I had a constant fight with in a multi-thousand post thread and who was head development of the Vista Audio stack at MS. Was, because he left MS after that job. I never talked directly to him ever since, but he is the guy who could really tell, would he have been on the W8 (audio) development team. Heck, maybe I should contact him.

There's also that matter of how at least the WASAPI audio stack has changed, and IIRC it was you who sent me a PM about it (there's only one always sending PMs so it has to be you :)). This is about WASAPI now being open to Metro apps with no clue on my side how it would influence Kernel Streaming (which is the base of it all). This is not what your PM was about, although this is in the same direction ("offloading" of audio to other hardware).
At least this would be a very good reason why the sound changed so drastically, because every small thing matters, and this would be a drastic change. Still no idea how it would influence KS, but since this is the base I think it had to be changed along the lines.

Lastly, notice that a PC is not made for high end audio and it has no attention from MS at all. Low latency streaming yes, but that is only one of our "vehicles".

Regards,
Peter

I don't think it is me that mentionned about this Wasapi intermingle with KS, but Mani ? Would it be this ?

Alain

The basis of our hobby is physics and there are tons of literature available how to built the perfect room (Opera houses, studios etc.) for music performances and replay.

Please see the two links only.
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/318/mini-courses/papers/rooms/Gade%20-%20Handbook%20Ch9.pdf

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/architectural-acoustics/bbc_guideacousticpractice.pdf

The XXH software is creating the BEST SQ in your room only, and no other room will be on par with your SQ!
You are measuring and adjusting the software to avoid your room abnormals. (cause and effect) Everything counts, even the material of the wallpaper.
So, my standing waves are different to yours due to the different room sizes and material of the walls etc.

Individual room treatment is mandatory for an excellent SQ. In other words, a very expensive chain will have a nasty SQ in an untreated room, and a small budget chain will have a superior SQ in an optimal treated room.
 
This is my experience over the last 25 years, even with XXH.


A link to handle abnormal room echoes/reflections via software.

http://www.lyngdorf.com/technologies/roomperfect.


Joachim

Maybe I am not sure how to interpret this in the proper context, but that said, you can't be more wrong (well, nobody is "wrong" as such, but you appear not to get what I mean, said and do).


Yes, and you should be banned for coming up for such a most devistating thing.
I'm only kidding of course ...
... to some extend.

Regards,
Peter

I must admit that I never took care of the acoustics during all these years... I always procrastinate about it :(

Was it easier to do this before ? I mean, if we change software versions (Windows, XXHE), isn't it normal that it will need to be done again ? Sometimes the changes can be so outstanding that it would be like changing the speakers, the amplifier, piercing the wall to add a new window...

If I was to do this, I would think twice before deciding to get a new component that would oblige me to go through the same process... And for me, a new XXHE version is like a new audio component each time.

I never thought I would perceive a software this way, but from hearing what W8 now does in addition to XXHE, well...

Alain

Well, that is the crux of the problem. Windows in any version is made for the business user first and foremost because that is Microsoft's bread and butter, and then second comes the home user who essentially is running MS Office(they hope) and Internet Explorer(probably) and precious little anything else. The audiophile users make up the smallest niche whereby they(we) get little by way of consideration.

I honestly feel bad for all developers of audio software who have to deal with new iterations of the OS, effectively fixing what wasn't broken in their software when running the previous OS. And then, of course, the new computer audio user who has recently a new PC is, by default, starting out with W8 and they just want things to work, otherwise they'll get their music software from somebody else(even if it doesn't sound as good as the more challenging software might).

Of course, we can all hunker down with our W7 software, not allow any updates from MS(well, we shouldn't anyway)  and then software developers like Peter(in the general category since there are no software developers like Peter except for maybe Miska on Windows side and Damien on the Mac side) can write code for a W7 exclusive XXHE.

Except, of course, it means being a bit reactionary and defintely not "future proof," whatever that elusive (and foolish, in my view) term is supposed to mean.

Esau

Well spoken Esau. Thanks.
If it only weren't so challenging with in addition that WOW which IMO *is* deep down in there this time.

Oh well, I won't give up anyway I guess. But at least for tonight I have decided to give W7 another listen. This must be after 3-4 weeks of W8 only. Curious what I will find. I hope I won't be too confusingly reporting tomorrow ...

Best regards,
Peter

There are things that are not written, but I am sure that these silent words are grateful for the wonderful work you do. Being a pioneer is an ungrateful job. You have to open a new trail "again", in the dark (no access to the hidden code), forced to do "trial an error" in an attempt to understand what happened or at least to "work around" problems that arise, even having to undo things that were good with the previous version...

You have to be hard headed for the job. but you have proven this too :)

Alain

Might his initials be SB or LO?

Nah, AM for sure.

Mani.

Thanks, Mani - got it.

Back to the sound and Win 8: Things are sounding very, very nice here.  "Best it's ever been" doesn't mean as much from someone like me who's been using XXHE only a relatively short time, but it does happen to be true.  Details of settings and setup in the sig.  I used a product called Primo Ramdisk to make the RAMdisks, because it offers something called Direct-IO that makes some file operations quite a bit quicker.

As soon as I got everything playing in my usual setup (minimized, unattended, phase alignment on), it was evident that vocals were much improved - much more open, airy, much more there and real.  Since at that point the only change I'd made was to put XXHE on a RAMdisk and assign another RAMdisk as the playback drive, I have to attribute the improvement exclusively to that.

However, the airiness was too dominant at that point, not allowing the "body" of the vocals and instruments to come through with sufficient dynamics and drama.  I tried various SFS settings, but didn't arrive at one that sounded just right until after some adjustments to XXTweaks.  I initially set the Nervous Rate to 100, which now sounded quite a bit better than 99; then adjusted Balanced Load into the upper 60s; tried a lot of SFS settings, eventually going higher than I'd ever tried before, and settling on 450; then tweaked Balanced Load again, arriving at 71 which just sounds great.  70 and below are too mild ("saltless," to use Peter's word), 72 makes everything too "breath-y," almost sounds like noise beginning to creep in.

I have a very modest setup for XXHE here in my office, cheap DAC, old amp (well thought of, but not terribly expensive when I bought it 20-some years ago), $100 mass market bookshelf speakers sitting atop a glass desk, and it really shouldn't be sounding as much like a high end audio system as it does - but it does.

By the way, let me recommend some music: Mark Knopfler's and Leonard Cohen's latest recordings, "Privateering" and "Old Ideas," respectively, are what I was testing with when the sound really got dialed in, and they're both excellent.

All right. I just looked it up, and it has been since the 8th of January I have been using Windows 8 for listening sessions (read : working day is over, so now play music). So this is over a month. Now back to Windows 7.

Started out with some Dead can Dance because it was visible in my Library because of something Mani came up with about it, a week or so ago. Never played it before, or at least so long ago that I can't remember. Right away I thought that it was a good thing not to A-B or IOW to not play familiar music or even bands. And remember what I said yesterday : when you don't know about more detail etc., so what. As long as you are satisfied.

Perceiving the "naturalness" of it, I thought to find something which I again never play, and which would exhibit possible similarity -if there- on mainly the cymbals but which also would show the size of cymbals. Remember, in W8 I regard them too small (too much metal) and with that too similar over tracks (and in the end albums). So I thought of Weather Report. This is how it immediately shows that Chine cymbals do exist, or anyway I noticed that Weather Report uses quite a few different kind of these. Notice that Chine cymbals are those "dirty" sounding "hats" with the edges curled upwards. Because this is quite heavy on the cymbals I thought it was a bit messy and I changed my SFS from 2 to 60. Just to make a difference. I didn't change that (with no real reason) for the remainder of the session.

I can't express the difference much, but somehow with the above two examples I heard music. Something which comes together in the *depth* of the stage. Hard to see where the plane of the music is and although I explicitly watched for it, I could not see it. No sound from speakers anywhere.

Then I thought of finding something which would show the difference to *you*. Something very explicit. Still I did not want to hear back any explicit difference with W8, so I thought to find something for me unknown from Jonas Hellborg. From the album I know "Elegant Punk" this is very high dynamic somewhat higher keyed slammed bass. I recall  when Normalized Volmue is let loose on that, it's set 12dB louder than my set average and when nothing is done about it, at the first stroke the windows (pun) go out. And so I found *another* album of him which I never played before. Now :

The sheer fact that I right away denote this album as the best I ever heard on *drums* tells ME everything. But careful, because it may be interpreted differently by you than how I interpret this myself. So what do *I* say ?

- It will be a very good recording but the chance that a third album I pick is the best ever ?
- It WILL be the *relative* difference to what I have been listening for for over a month.

And further :

- More analog it can't be with all these nice dynamics;
- The differentiation between all what is hit is by accident (??) what I was looking for, and found it right away.

Notice the importance of NOT A-B-ing which makes you an objective listener.

Now the fun, hopefully. I did not compare this with W8. I actually don't want to know. I could be in denial, but at a so normal listening sesssion without anything to complain about I don't WANT to be in this stress of getting it right. Heck, it *is* right, now. It was and still is. In my view it can only happen that for elements I will regard W8 better again, but in the mean time I will be annoyed about too many other things not working. And when for album A it works, then for B through Z it won't. And so the fun :

I have put a track to FileMail for the first 10 of you who are serious about this and want to compare. Do notice that you have to be able to compare and so you need W8 and W7 on a dual boot or other switchable means. You'd have to announce yourself in this topic for it and I will send it to the email address as listed in the forum, unless you denote otherwise.
Then I like you to report about the differences you hear. "W8 sounds better !" will not do. You really must try to pull out the elements like I tend to do it. This is also meant to be a sort of self-learning exercise; that you not net choose for the best, knowing from me that any disturbance should be rejection. It could mean rejection of both W7 and W8, but then the why is important.

All I can give you as a sort of placebo is that to me this sounds the most close to live drums and I can add that the other day I was in the hall hearing my son taking his daily drum lesson, thinking that we are still so so far off. But this was with W8 playing at the same time, and I never thought we were so far off. We are, but it didn't occur to me so explicitly. Placebo ? actually not much. It was with another album obviously, and I myself never listened to W8 with this one / track. So it is all up to you.

The goal ? well, if people are able to point out how this track sounds better on a majority of elements on W8, there will be better motivation to continue seeking for how to get there.
Don't forget to play it at your normal loud levels, so you won't be able to think that dynamics are not hurting you just because you play it softly; it has to work all the way.

Peter

Am I too late for filemail?  If not I'd be happy to give it a listen. Having dodged the snow storm and having worked all day yesterday "tracking down witnesses" I have some time today to give it a listen. Thanks!

OK, here’s my take on all of this… FWIW.

When I first heard W8 in minimized mode, there was something so different (and attractive) about the sound that I stayed up half the night listening to music and enjoyed every minute of it. But interestingly, it was pretty much all rock, and the ‘edge’ added to this type of music by W8 (in minimized mode) seemed to bring it more to life – it gave me a bigger kick.

But it’s definitely a ‘strange’ sound. Actually reminiscent of Windows Server, when I played around with this a few years ago. You’d come out of a listening session with a buzz in your ears and slightly disorientated. Very similar.

Right now, I think we have to admit that we’re so far off our ultimate quest – to eliminate the effects of the OS on the sound. And this is not surprising – as other people have said, the OS designers hardly had SQ at that top of their priority list. But what Peter has given us is a way to tweak the OS (and a bunch of other things totally unrelated to the OS which help massively with SQ) to get the best out of it, and as a result, we can achieve a very reasonable sound that exceeds any other digital transport that I’ve come across.

But this situation really, really pisses me off. We’re always at the mercy of the OS. Maybe we should just resign ourselves to this and do what we’ve done in the past whenever a new OS or an SP1/SP2 comes around – pool our resources to find how to get the best out of it using all the tools in XX. It’s a lot of work and bloody frustrating for us, and I can’t even imagine how it must be for Peter. But what other choice do we have?

Well, a couple of years back I decided to try an alternative approach to see if it had any merit. It was Miska’s ‘Network Audio Adapter’ approach. I won’t go into details here (just do a search on it), but essentially it tries to really eliminate the effects of the OS on sound, acting as a (galvanically isolated) buffer between the main PC (with W7/W8 and software player) and the DAC. I have it setup right now in my main system, and even with a Mytek DAC, which is clearly massively inferior to the NOS1, I’m getting a really nice result. But most importantly from my perspective, I can make changes to the main PC which seem to have zero impact on the sound. For example, there seems to be absolutely no difference in sound when XX in engaged in the main PC and used to switch between normal or minimized state. I know that not all services would have been closed down without XX being used as the player, but still there should be a big difference in resource usage between the two states. And yet the sound through the NAA seems unaffected.

My next step will be to compare W7 and W8 using an NAA. And what if I find there is no difference in sound? What if the type of hard-drive makes no difference? Or the number of devices connected to the main PC? Or whether you’re using PAN, LAN or even wifi? If all these things make no difference, then I think we can assume Miska is really onto something.

So where does this leave us? Here’s my ultimate dream setup:

- main PC with W7/W8 (shouldn’t matter at all)
- although HQPlayer is cable of excellent SQ, and even though most of the controls in the Settings area should become obsolete, I’d rather use XX
     - I prefer the library management
     - I really, really want to use phase alignment
- of course, the NOS1 DAC – it’s simply the best I’ve heard

What would it take to achieve this dream setup? Obviously, Peter and Miska (Jussi) need to work together on it, and find a mutually beneficial way to do this. There would need to be appropriate drivers made for the NOS1 to work under Linux. And I think that’s it. Let me tell you, I am willing to put in as much effort and energy (and contribute financially if necessary, albeit with limited resources) to make this happen.

Meanwhile, let’s do what we've done in the past - get the best out of what we have. Peter, a PM is on its way. I’ve got a problem with my W8 drive (I don’t think it appreciated being uplugged whilst being in minimized mode) but I’ll reinstall W8 no problems. W7 is still working perfectly.

I hope I’ve not spoken out of place with this post. Just sharing my feelings.

Mani.

Peter, if you don't get 10 otherwise, I'm happy to do it.  (If you do get 10 otherwise, I'm happy to sit back and let others do the work.  :-)

Mani,


This is a bit tough to respond to, without drooping into stuff which can't be understood anyway. But I'll give it a try.

First off, of course it doesn't matter a single thing for e.g. Minimized OS or not, working this way. And yes, afterwards you may say "of course" just as well, but in the mean time you mention it as a virtue. But it is no virtue.
All you do is make your playback "PC" independent of any control. As if control weren't needed. So result ? whatever is in there, can't be changed. Not this way.

The other part of the "issue" is that you now blindly assume Linux is any good. Of course, it is actually the same topic as in the previous paragraph, but it really is not (good) at all. And so ...

So all you desire is no influence from the OS.
Well, wrong. Wrong as long as an OS is playing ball for you.

Also notice that you put this only from the perspective of the by itself nice wish. But if I look hard I can quote text from you where you explicitly state that this NAA doesn't cut it either. And it doesn't or otherwise it's sheer coincidence and you can't even compare with other settings in there;
Miska is not me, and his approaches are totally different, any sort of "XXHE" approach being far from him.
To name something (and have a point), this is not about galvanical isolation and noise from there, or otherwise Nick/Paul would have had better result with their isolated USB connection to the NOS1-USB. Well, it went worse of it (and 100% logical for me and which is why I promised that in advance). Many reaons for it, and none of them you will find in any Linux (or more lean OS) solved.

While you remain right on hating any OS influencing your sound, you will *have* to recognize that influencing the OS for that sound is key to get it right. Otherwise you are stuck once and for all.

The way to go is a different one. It looks a bit like this NAA from Miska, but the approach is different. My way. You will see, hopefully soon ...

Thanks for the input !
Peter

Will give a more detailed response, but for now let me just say that whatever is behind the "Wow!" factor of W8 is front and center on the Hellborg track. Geeze it sounds alive and tonaly/harmonically rich with each and every instrument. A good track for experiencing the opposite and hearing the "Wow!" factor in W7 is Wonderful World, Eva Cassidy, from the "Wonderful World" album. It's not recorded well, you can hear a piece of equipment buzzing during the recording (might be a live recording).

It almost sounds like a decision was made to swap the tonal/harminc richness from vocals to instruments from one OS to the other. Just a very uneducated but informed by ears guess.......

Always the tease....  :)

Brian - Not to encourage you to come up with further details faster than you can cope with, but is it possible to say this in Dutch ?
I really can't tell whether this is good or bad and whether this is W7 or W8.
And that is a pitty.

Peter

This is in W8 and I mean to say that the sound is very, very good.

Yep, these things are difficult to talk about.

I'm all for control, if we have an idea of exactly what we're controlling. I mean, can anyone tell me why changing the SFS changes sound the way it does? I mean, universally we find that a lower SFS sounds 'brighter' and more 'airy' and a higher SFS sounds 'richer', 'thicker' and more 'dense'. This is pretty much consistent across the board.  Does anyone (you Peter?) actually understand the mechanism driving the sound here? There's obviously a 'sweet spot' and maybe a simple Linux installation hits it first time?


I'm pretty ambivalent towards the exact OS being used. My initial search was actually driven by trying to eradicate all switch-mode power supplies from my dedicated mains ring. I tried an Atom PC with a linear PS, but it wasn't a good fit with XX. I then came across the NAA concept. I could use a high-powered PC on the house ring connected (with galvanic isolation) to the NAA, which itself was powered by a high-quality linear PS. The biggest downside I found was not being able to use XX or the NOS1. I have a lot of respect for Miska, but I prefer XX over HQPlayer for a number of reasons. And as for the DAC, I simply refuse to use anything other than the NOS1 in my main system.

As for Linux, I have no idea whether it's better or worse sounding than W7/W8. But remember, I'm not talking about using a Linux software player, but rather using a Linux buffer.


Yeah true. When I first tried Miska's NAA, I could detect a difference in sound between the music being stored and played back from the main PC's internal HDD vs. a NAS drive. BUT... the difference was much less than say changing the SFS setting in XX. And also, I can't remember how I had things configured. It may well have been that I had something (the LAN switch, the NAS, etc) sub-optimally set up. In any event, I intend to look into all this again...

Mani

Hey Mani,


Yes, I do. It took "years" but I do. The point here is that two forces act at the same time. And you know what ? the one which tells me that the lower isn't the best is exactly why W8 should be better. This is not SFS related, but the same force at play.
And at least in my system I am wrong about that too, just as that in W7 that force tells me to use the higher while I don't prefer that (which choice also took years).
So conclusion ?
... that this one force at play is a confusing one, at least to me. Only - and only if we receive too few noise with W8 and it is to be covered for by more noise before it sounds good, I understand this "force". But I refuse to believe that, no matter it is my own subject. It is the weakest excuse for not knowing really.


So what ? Just find back the last XXHighEnd version which did not allow to change the SFS. It just was a setting chosen by me, like such a setting exists in any player, up to the ones you use in Linux (see below). And ... what do you think ... will that have the best SFS setting I had chosen by pure accident ? Or doesn't it matter in the first place ?
So there you go. You *want* that dial. Only when I had chosen SFS=2 by accident and it works for everybody the best or else they must buy another Playback drive ot whatever, you can be correct.
As I said, you want that control. Or better : we need it. Only when ALL has been sorted out we can do without, but still there will be a programmed one. It is not a trick you know, it is a necessary "buffer".


Sorry, but no. There is a small piece of "player" in there. Same as the piece of player in XXEngine3.exe which is only a few lines of code. Without that, no sound. Not here not there not anywhere. Not in Linux either.
More differences exist than you can imagine. Or actually you can. The difference between Attended and Unattended actually. What is the difference ? a program with a form which is there or not. Don't shut off anything and that is the only difference and you will hear it. Put your mouse over the form (just let it rest) and there is a difference.
Your "Miska" Linux application is no different from how XXEngine3 plays when it plays. Nothing can change it anymore once it plays. Two differences with that Linux solution :
- The OS;
- The means to control SQ.
And a more or less third :
Linux will be more lean. What comes from that ? God knows. Windows 8 sound, theoretically.

But my theories, and they can be so wrong ...
:)
Peter


PS: There is still nothing much wrong with your whole idea about it. As I said, wait ... :swoon:

Haha, as soon as I had the NAA/Mytek setup in my main system yesterday I thought how similar it sounded to W8 in minimize mode - impressive and annoying at the same time.

On a total aside, a few remarks about the Mytek. When I first got it, I thought it was really very good for the price. I'm going to revise this (probably not a good idea as I'll probably want to sell it soon). It's about right for its price. Nothing at all special about it. You'll read people raving about its DSD performance. I have to say that I think DSD is sh*t. There is something seriously wrong with it. I mean, it's 'dead'. All the life has been sucked out of the sound. I tried so hard to like it yesterday. I tried some old pure DSD recordings from DMP and some new recordings from Blue Coast... and just had a headache by the end of the session - I'm serious, and I'm the sort of person who just never gets headaches. I think my brain is being asked to work much harder when I listen to DSD. It's as if there's a blanket over the sound, and my brain has to fill in the information that has been lost or recreated badly. And I don't say this lightly. I've recently invested in two DSD recorders with the intention of recording my rare/valuable vinyl in DSD64 and DSD128. But there isn't a cat's chance in hell that DSD will be able to capture the sonics available on my vinyl. Pure PCM at 24/192 gets so so close...


Hmmmmm...

Mani.

Just catching up on this thread and I noticed Peter's comments about how I may (or may not) appreciate the neutrality of SQ. At least I think that is what Peter was referring to (apologies if I have got this wrong). Well I have to say that "neutrality" to me is not a very important aspect of sound reproduction (OK I have to put some big big caveats on this) but basically I am saying that in terms of musical enjoyment I can get used to "colourations" provided they are within sensible limits.

What really stands out for me is distortion and inaccuracy. So when I listen to W7 now and I just cannot hear the individual strands of music and it sounds "blurred" and I then hear W8 and I hear with crystal clear accuracy the individual strands of the of music and also I can hear better sound stage etc etc I just "know" W8 is better SQ. But that is not to say there are not other problems. I just heard an Ella Fitzgerald remaster and wow did it have a sharp edge to it. So then I had to put on a recording I know is top drawer. And Oh Boy did it sound good. So now, it sounds to me, that we enter a whole new dimension of getting everything else in our systems to be able to accommodate what XX with W8 is capable of. That is how it sounds to my ears.



P

I'v been watching the debate take shape and decided to spend some time playing on Windows 7 today after 3 weeks or so of using Windows 8. I have to say straight away I have been extremely impressed with Windows 8 but it's interesting to step back to Windows 7 to compare.
So thoughts on Windows 7 and Windows 8 (based on 9-z08-1a and low latency settings for both OS's eg SFS 2 Q=1 etc)

Windows 7

Mid range is where the magic is (and I mean magic),there is a totally believable presence not over etched just very real, voices and acoustic instruments are set in beautiful relief, there is a beautiful balance of speed, tone, details. The sound is absolutely in the moment of the performance.
Highs have a greater degree of sweetness than Windows 8, I was suppressed how much so, BUT Highs also have distortions, a slight sibilance and harshness that act to break the spell by just reminding you this music is being reproduced each time the music hits a frequency that excites these faults.  Having said this I just get the sense of the music flowing from each instant in time to the next which is a very good thing, there is a sense that anything could happen next because the musicians could DO anything next (even through it a recording), this is exciting to listen to.

11/02/13 EDIT I need to tone down this comment on sibilance and top end distortion it is there but to a much lesser extent than I had thought. I found that something I was doing internally within my NOS1 was causing most of this. It's fixed and whilst there is a small amount of top end distortion left its nowhere near as pronounced whilst using Windows 8 now.


Bass snap and tonal resolution get a 7/10 which is ok but not top draw. Weight in Windows 7 is about the same as Windows 8 but it’s less distinct tonally and so not a tuneful as Windows 8.

Overall Windows 7 is great for less dense acoustic music, but can lose an amount of control on dense complex music like rock and dance, partially when highs that excite the sibilance are in the mix. When this happens the music sounds slightly confused at the top and a layer of detail is lost.

Overall impression of Windows 7: very real midrange presence, a sense of realness and live performance that draw you in and make me want more. I just feel myself wishing for better Bass, the loss of the sibilance and that last step of control on complex passages with HF energy.

Windows 8

Gives a very balanced spectral performance from low to high frequency, consistent solid, detailed, with a rock solid stage. Bass is better controlled with greater tonal differentiation of notes, mid range is very smooth and sounds natural but a notch or two less presence and “realness” compared to W7. Highs are smooth without the slight sibilance of W7 BUT  they do not have the sweetness or the weight of the Windows 7 highs, this is a small but important step backwards. For a brand new OS without XX tweaking it’s a brilliant start (really brilliant) but it sounds like it needs the magic that Min OS and XTweaks bought in W7 in order to just give it that kick of realness in the midrange and sweeten the highs. Now that would really be something.

Right now I could see me booting into different OS versions to suit the music that is to be played, IMHO though W8 is many times better than W7 when it was first released and Windows 8 appears to be extremely promising if Peter can work his magic in a way to would tune it as effectively as with Windows 7.  If the midrange life and top end sweetness of Windows 7 could be bought forward in to the Windows 8 sound that would be a sound I could really live with, long term. Fingers crossed.

Nick.

Ps no comments on sound staging in the above comments, my listening environment disqualifies my from passing comment here (Paul will know why, haha ).

W8 anomaly or not?. I had a bit of a shock earlier today. So far I had not heard any problems with imaging that Peter and others had reported with W8 (i.e. strange phasing effects). But earlier today I was listening to an old mono recording and oh boy did it sound different under W8 compared with W7. Under W8 is sounded like there were odd phase effects in the room. But then on second listening it sounded as though the room was evenly pressurised (for the first time) there were no holes in the sound as I walked around my room ( and maybe that is what sounded strange). And then listening further it seemed that the images were for the first time pretty much all in the middle between the speakers. Under W7 sounds at different frequencies appeared in different places in the sound stage which actually was not an unpleasant effect (I am not that bothered about imaging). But what is very interesting is that there should be such a big difference between W7 and W8. I have to say that I am still puzzled as to why there should be such a big difference between W8 and W7.

I would be really interested to hear the views of others about mono recordings played back under W7 and W8 (in other words am I losing it?)

P

Well, that took all of about 5 seconds.  Yes, Peter, as always you're correct.  All settings in Win7 and Win8 were identical in my listening and Windows 7 sounds a ton better.  Don't know what this means from your point of view as the developer, but I can tell you what I am hearing as a listener, at least on my rig.  And "on my rig" should not be minimized, because of course this is a much different DAC we are talking about, to say nothing of the rest of the system.  Still, it was very obvious, literally 5 seconds, maybe even less.

First what I heard, then why I think I heard it:

On Win7 I heard a band playing in furious concentration together with each other, led by the drummer's stick work on the ride cymbal, which gives the whole piece its energy.  And beauty and subtlety in the playing to go with this energy.  You could "see" the drummer behind his kit playing the toms and cymbals, "see" the timing of his arms and legs as he moved from one to the other so, so fast, yet always driving the other players and the piece forward with that ride cymbal.  The whole thing had a kind of Arabic adventure flavor; you could kind of see it as soundtrack for horses galloping at night across desert hills.  (Yes, definitely hills - in spite of the drive and consistency of that ride cymbal, there was subtle ebb and flow to the piece, not a simple uniform rhythm to the drums or the accompaniment.)

In Win8, there was drama aplenty in individual instrumental sounds - toms had a real whump to them, the sticks hit the cymbals, you could hear the separation between all the bass notes and really feel those notes.  But there was nothing between them.  The ride cymbal, completely central in Windows 7, was dominated by all the other percussion and instruments going on around it in Windows 8, too far in the background to drive anything forward.  Amazing to have all that air and all those good transients, yet no connective tissue to hold them together.  It is good you sent this track around, Peter, because I nearly always play test tracks with relatively few players and uncomplicated vocal and instrumental parts, so I was not missing this connective tissue, this interaction between players, like I should have been.

There was no subtlety in Win8, no ebbs and flows, no horses riding in the night up and down hills, no sense of the drummer playing on this tom over here, then having to quickly reach over to strike the crash cymbal there.  I was truly sorry for the piece to end in Win7; in Win8, I listened for a minute or so, had more than enough to know what I needed to know to write this, and turned it the heck off.

So that's what I heard, now why?  First and foremost, no microdynamics in Win8.  It does some of the big stuff so well - big dynamics, air, transients - that you can hardly believe it, but it's true.  No subtlety, no band members playing with and against each other, no tiny shadings of rhythm, loudness, no changes of phrasing....  So no wonder you hear "panning."  First you hear drums over here, then you hear another part of the drum kit over there, but there's nothing in between - it's like teleportation, the drummer was one place and without any subtle change to let you know he's getting ready for it, all of a sudden he's in another place.  As I said, I could "see" the drummer in Win7 move around his drum kit, because all the little audible cues were there.  Not so in Win8.

Second, and this may all be part of the same basic problem, not something separate, under Win8 instruments don't seem to be able to play together with each other.  One sound at a time dominates (often a different instrument from instant to instant) and the others are in the background, there are no instrumental lines weaving around and through each other.  So again you get the sense of notes from various instruments suddenly appearing disconnectedly from nowhere, rather than being able to follow them from foreground to background and back again.  (Yes, as I read this, it seems that it probably is part of the same basic lack of microdynamics.  Either an instrument is in the foreground or you almost can't hear it, and even if it's in the foreground you don't get subtlety from it.)

Hope this helps you to perhaps see a way forward under Win8.

I'm following the discussions and I wonder whether Windows 8 is introducing some active manipulation of the bitstream? Is it possible hat this big difference is caused by other operating sytem architecture?

Georg

So it's getting more and more odd ...


Emphasis are mine of course.

So, here is someone who judges mono. And mind you, I also receive emails from people who actually don't post here, claiming phase anoamlies and that I should observe mono perhaps. I never did that so far, but why not use Paul's great (or was it large ?) ears ...

Emphasis # 1
So, in stereo did this not occur, but only now, in mono, it does ? (and most seem to perceive "anomalies" to this regard)

Emphasis # 2
So, in stereo did this not occur, while one of the first thing I claimed was just this (measurable) ?

Emphasis # 3
No holes when mono ? But exactly 100% these holes in stereo, at least in my system ?

Emphasis # 4
Image finally in the middle with mono, while we all fairly much agree that stereo just draws everything apart while it should not ?

Emphasis # 5
Different frequencies jump around in the image ?
This is not something I wrote about in here but elsewhere I did (Jud will recognize it from attitude, lattitude and altitude). But I recognize this from stereo and W8.


Keep in mind guys, this is the report from the one and only man who perceives great satisfaction from W8, but now comes up with all the anomalies in one compressed post when playing mono.
If you look closely it is all the exact other way around. I can't even type the "formula" because all is twisted.

HOW ?

Eh, Paul, check your cables ?
I did and all was okay at playing the test tracks through W8.

And Paul, are you using those mystery feet ? Remember, if one strange phenomenon evenly pressurises the room it is that; Assumed W8 is wrong somewhere, possibly those feet create an adverse effect on it. Or "reversed" - I don't know.

Of course I'm still suggesting that W8 is wrong, while it just as well can be so that W7 and everything else is wrong. Now somehow you, Paul, created the prerequisite to let it work out as intended. Maybe eleborate somewhat on the ByBees you use ? maybe it gives a clue somewhere.

Peter

If the group of 10 testers is not complete yet I am ready and willing to participate

Leo

Also in response to Georg somewhat :

I will finally tell about something which could be important but I have been reluctant to tell about because I am not sure and it needs further "testing"; because of my idea "nah, can't be true anyway" I let it rest. Still I should tell about it. So here goes :

2 or 3 weeks back I hooked up the analyser actually only to check whether the phase difference between both channels still is 0.00 degrees under W8. Not more digits are available, but I reckoned that when I'd suddenly see 0.01 (or worse) it would tell enough. But it was 0.00. Too bad.

I don't know how it went, but somehow I left the analyser on and let the signal running;
The FFT analyses I am actually looking at, shows the THD+N and we test each NOS1 for that. It should say 0.00180% or a bit above that (like 0.00185). The analyser keeps track of minimum and maximum values received during the session.

To my big surprise, looking after 10 or so minutes, I saw the minimum values for both channels in the 0.00140 range. Said "what ?" and *because* I was doing this test to find W8 culprits anyway, I reset the min/max values and waited for it maybe to happen again (I could have made some mistake ?). Saw nothing strange.
Notice that this is a constantly "wobbling" figure while the "wobbling" is a measure within itself.
Waited until all recurring things had passed (like the test track which is 2 minutes and is repeated with A-B).
Watched for a few minutes and then gave up, but kept it running.

Maybe after 20 minutes I looked again, and you can guess it. Bingo.
Both channels had achieved a best THD+N of exactly 0.00140%.

The point is, knowing how the THD is calculated, it theoretically can happen that because of a "nice capture of the wave" the figure is better for some cycle. But I don't see that happening with e.g. 10 minutes of needing to wait for that, while the wave itself comprises of a handful of samples only (something like 40 for the 1000Hz signal, in the 16x Arc Prediction upsampling 16 x 40 = 640. And that passes 1000 times per second, thus 60000 times per minute, and then still a new combination of the "sampler window" can be there ? No).
And the precise 0.00140 for both channels also bothers me. Never saw the both channels so equal.

... but I am never watching at any test sequence for this ...

What I do explicitly watch is the amount of "wobble". So, with that 0.00180 as a target, we see it change from something like 0.00175 to 0.00195 and watch this for maybe a minute. If it stays in between that range, all is OK. Never it jumps down to e.g. 150 figures (with 16/44.1 btw). Never. And now it can go to 140 ?


So this is what I never told and also never proceeded upon, because I never looked at this minimum figure. We let it run for 30 minutes always (tracking for errors etc.) but don't watch that minimum. So maybe I should now for W7. I will.

But what if it never happens there while it consistently does with W8 ? Then something *has* to be going on, right ?

Btw, funny. Someone resurrected a topic from 2008 today, and this is what I wrote  in there (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=586.msg4217#msg4217) :


This started to happen in 2008, never went away not even with NOS1's around the block, and it is precisely this which does not work with Windows 8 anymore ...

I think it could be time to enlist the help of other ears to come along and listen to what I am hearing. So Mani and Nick (and anyone else?) you are most welcome to come and help (as I am beginning to feel a bit isolated  :scratching:). But first there are those mystery feet and (not mentioned before) I have small "sugar cubes" and resonators providing room treatment. So first things first I will remove all of those tonight and listen again. The Bybees will have to stay the thought of taking my speakers apart again - uurrgghh. And anyway I would find it very difficult to believe that they would do something different to the sound under W8 (hey but who knows).

Just a note about stereo imaging - It certainly does sound very different here in W8 compared with W7 but it does not sound *wrong* or *phasy* but for sure I will listen again tonight with the room treatment stuff removed.

Just a note again about my listening environment - it is about as difficult as it is possible to get (no sorry Nick you have to get top honours there!!!). I mentioned elsewhere that it took me a long time to get it to sound good. There is a big suck out in the lower registers and just about every speaker (inc. big and small transmission lines, quad esl) I have tried here just sound awful. It is only pure luck that I ended up with AN/E's and I have been able to improve the bass by moving the speakers very close (5cm) to the rear "walls" so boosting bass (rear firing ports!) to the point where it actually sounds OK now. But the character of the room is still dry and there is very little of the standing wave and "boxy" effects that can occur in many other "normal" rooms. So maybe my very odd room shape could be a factor here. There is also no wall or hard shiny windows between the speakers but I think that is a good thing to balance off some of the bad things about the room.

Anyway more fun for tonight.

Paul

Well , my two cents comparing W7 and W8 using the Hellborg test track. I used my 'optimized'(copy of Peter's actually) settings for both OS, using 2 Ramdisks for each, same volume setting (-19,5)
The differences are huge and I will probably lose all audio-respectability with my preference for W8.
There is much more to listen to and to me absolutely not artificial sounding but very real extra detail on most instruments. When the bassdrum is used it is almost startling with  detail in the attack and development of the sound. With W7 it is just a low thud. When the bass guitar plays I hear a growl on the string attack with W8 which I can not find when listening to W7.
The origin of the sound seems more constricted with W7, it is much more tame to me.
Only thing could be that the spread of the cymbals from left to right was very wide in W8 making the drumset larger than life . This aspect seemed more realistic with W7.
Well whatever the road from here will be I really hope that this lifelike and exciting aspect of W8 will be part of it.
Leo
PS
this was after two runs of the track on both OS, tomorrow I will try again and see how stable my opinions are

PPS
I did not check for this roomfilling aspect mentioned in the previous post as I was glued to my seat :)

Hi Leo,

I am in favour of W8 just the same but I did not compare the Helborg test track... I have listened for a few days to W8 only and I just love what I am hearing.

Clean, clear, tight, stable and a solid listening window where nothing jumps out or shows articial affects.

I can truely see what is happening now, much less "virtual".

No reason for me to go back to W7!  :)

Paul hi,

I was going to pm you to set up a visit to yours. I'm really interested to catch up. We will certainly have a lot to try out :) Personally I would not get worried about what you are hearing, I was astounded by how easy it was to hear that the Adnaco was not as good as direct usb connection. I would be very happy to come and lend an ear.

I am keen to try our DaCs back to back as well, you will know why  ;)

will pm you,

Cheers

 Nick.

Hi Bert - what changed in your setup? the last post of yours I read you preferred W7. Just interested to know what you changed.

Paul

Nick - You are always very welcome. I would also be interested to also compare amps as I now have the BG NX's and I seem to remember you have installed caps but I cannot remember what you ended up with but I know you have a different arrangement to me.

It would also value your opinion of what the room treatment things I have now do to the SQ.

Paul

Paul, Nick, if you happen to be meeting up any day this week, I might be able to join you. Just let me know...

Cheers, Mani.

Hi Paul,

Several things changed (more transparancy, more dynamics, more resolution) and W8 could not ruin the good mood so something is very right!

Using Peter's settings.

But I have not heard W7 with the changes to the system (speaker wire, RAM disk and one other which I want to keep for myself at a moment).

I will go back to W7 soon (easy job with the multi-boot PC) and then I'll know.

Bert

Jud post #279 describes exactly what I am observing in my system. No setting or tweak up to today has been able to change that. In fact when I switch back to win7 ANY music I play sounds so engaging that i find myself listening to complete albums, where in win 8 it takes an effort to listen into 2 minutes into a track. This IS about the musical fabric that is lacking in win8.

That's the way it is here, I do not intend to judge anyone in this forum on an opposite experience.
The pro-win8 lot have something fundamentally different in their systems or rooms. This could be about the filtering or absence thereoff in the playback chain. I don't buy this is a matter of (bad :grin:) tase.
We should be able to sort this out together.

For your entertainment hereunder some stuff I tried:

XX on a primo RAMdisc on win7 did no good to the sound, adding a nasty edge and destroying some of the musical magic. I was under the impression that Primo does not support win8, so I did not try. I might as well give the IMdisc a shot. I suspect however that this will not change win8 into a super win7, but if it does that would be nice.

I got some progress in win8 and win7 with disabeling the motherboard devices that are not in use (mobi usb3, com ports, unused usb2 chipset, etc) with "device manager". The sound gets a little more coherent, nothing really big.

Regards, Coen

Filemail?

Hi Peter,

Is the track still on-line? I would like to play it before going back to W7.

Bert

Thanks Peter,

I just played it on W8 for a few seconds and got very confused about the sound. Nothing adds up and all is extremely phasy as if polarity is f*cked up all over the place.

Unlistenable but totally different to all recordings I have played on W8 before where I never heard things like that...that's weird.

Totally stupid mix as if all is playing in and around your head but not in front of you as usual.

One solution to make it sound more acceptable is to exchange the absolute phase (only possible without PA activated). This way things have more their place in the reproduced image (without describing this as a natural image).

Tried W7 but that did not work, somehow explorer is corrupted and does not want to start. My guess is that the W8 Shell replacement changed things within the W7 directory...is that even possible?

I will try to re-install (repair) W7 later so that it will play there too but I can't imagine that W7 will change that Jonas Hellborg track into a normal recording because if it does then all my other recordings will probably sound wrong...

Bert

Hi, Coen.  Primo RAMdisk works without problem in Win8.  I have both the XX drive and Playback Drive in both OSes on RAMdisks configured with Primo as "direct I/O," which all the reviews say is faster.

But even with this setup on Win8 (exactly the same as Win7), I heard what I heard.

Funny that Win8 does enough things very right that I thought when listening to Win8 exclusively it was the best I'd ever heard XXHE.  But then I compared to Win7 and that was it, literally 5 seconds or less and I knew.

Hi, Bert.  I am wondering if the way the track falls apart on Win8 has to do with the rhythmic complexity and instrumental interplay.  Everything I was listening to when liking Win8's presentation so much was more like solo vocalist with a couple of instruments accompanying, and rhythmically simple.

I had to get to bed before getting the chance to compare any other tracks in the two OSs.  I will try to do that in the next day or two.  But it would be difficult for me to believe that Win7 could get the Hellborg so right and helplessly screw up everything else.

I played some big brass bands too where some sounded weird and unacceptable but different (for now I blame that on the recording) but also some that sounded very much okay and spacious and deep as if all was happening there and not in my head.

I hope I can get W7 back to work quickly to be able to check out the weirdness...  :scratching:

Peter, I would like to do the test too, but I already threw 7 out.
Maybe I'll have to go back to get more happy?

What I think happened here was a change in sound during one album on Win8. I played for my children a K3-album ( :whistle:) and they are happy to jump around. But the first track already sounded weird. A lot of bass but like it was mixed with glue and could not get loose. Mid's sound recessed, highs not airy.
But since the kids didn't complain I left it on.
But a couple of songs later the sound became more normal.
I thought maybe it's warmup of the amps or me getting used to it.
But then it shouldn't be a 'new' experience. And I heard it the first time I tried Win 8 and thought I got rid of it when I changed to your settings.
After reading your distortion story I felt I could write this without making a fool of myself!

Bert, I would say not. W8 is in a completely different partition, right ? So how ?

You will probably be right somewhere, but I really don't see how at this time ...

Peter

W7 is working again... It required a complete new install so my listening impressions are with a fresh install.

First impression compared to W8 was dullness... but that disappeared quickly after hearing that cymbal having size, volume and singing instead of smashing aluminium discs.

This sounds much more to a real drum set than through W8.

With W8 those cymbals are "processed" throwing out high frequencies all over the place and out of phase at the same time. This is what disturbs most clearly but everything else is affected the same, it is with this record all over the place.

Under W7 it is stable and natural even though the drum is mixed much too big to my taste unless you want to hear the drum sitting close in front it. My guess is that the mikes were close to the floor while recording... at least it sounds to me like that.

Bert

That is not what I wanted to hear Bert. Although that is what I wanted to hear.

Well, I hope you get it.

What a stupid stuff eh ...

Peter

Yes, and yes but stupidly even more is that several other recordings seem to work out for the better using W8.

But that is then probably the additional things less obviously processed in the mix?

Blehhh...

Positive thing is that my W7 is now as clean as it can be after its new installation and re-activation here was not an issue.

Oh well, back to the drawing board! :dntknw:

Bert,

Heads up (or down for a few) :
Played with W8 tweaks onto W7 tonight for the first time in full.

Ha - ha.
:teasing:

But as known, I can always change my mind.
:nea:

Played a couple more kinds of things - Jordi Savall (early music, going as far forward as baroque), and Iron & Wine (a fellow named Sam Beam who does indie pop/rock with assorted instruments and fellow players). 

One advantage of playing the Savall is that just a couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure and privilege of seeing him in concert, sitting directly in front of him perhaps twenty feet away as he played with a small orchestra.  I consider myself very lucky, as he is an absolute world treasure.  (His recordings are not hard to find - I believe he's released over 170 of them!  He plays several stringed/bowed instruments, chiefly viola da gamba, and conducts.)  So I have a very good idea of how he should sound, and how he likes his ensemble to sound.

Certainly with the Savall, and even with Iron & Wine, though less so, I again noticed with Windows 8 the same lack of interplay between instruments and lack of subtle intonations and cues as I did last night with the Hellborg.

Strange that we all should think the instruments and vocals come from such a silent background in Windows 8, yet we can hear so little of the quietest sounds, the microdynamics.

From this (though I could very easily be 180 degrees wrong) I take it that either there must be low level noise in Windows 8 - sufficiently low level we think it's silence, but it isn't really - or that something is cutting off the sound below a certain level but above the usual noise floor.  Otherwise I don't see how sound seems to emerge suddenly from complete silence but I can't hear anything very, very quiet, which a truly silent background and the ability to render low level sounds should utterly reveal.

Sorry to intrude, but this is a generic problem with much digital: many high end systems using CD players seem to have this weakness. I witnessed this on a friend's setup at one point, using an older, modified Quad player ... and very bizarre it was to hear!

Somehow, the DAC operation is being kneecapped by electrical interference, which has to be eliminated, one way or the other ....

Frank

Hey Frank, it seems that you are not around long enough to have read the whole topic. But you really should.

What you say is all right, but not the slightest related to the subject of the topic.
Well, at least let's hope so !!
Haha

Peter

Although I too have that strange perception of "not being quiet" I never saw it from this angle (but I hope I understand what you mean in the first place). It makes me think of something else though, that I seem to read in between your lines : that inabililty to have the volume level right for even one track. So, too soft or too loud ? Earlier I called this dynamics and then in the sense of dynamic range. Like the dynamic range has extended - so, the difference between the softest and the loudest in a track;
All I know is that when something is wrong with the byte order this can happen and actually goes unnoticed. In my vision, what could be happening here is that the two least significant bytes have swapped, which makes the lowest and finest details be 256 times more loud while the middle part (of 3 bytes forming 24 bits) now plays at the low end. This makes the mid part disappear and would exhibit this larger dynamics in the area where the most significant byte is not involved (because the music is not loud enough or we attenuate too much).

This again looks like conspiracy thinking, but it would fit my judgement of all being fairly OK while playing very softly. I don't know the level anymore (I told about it in one of the posts) but I recall that I just not lost the complete most significant byte and that one bit was left of it.

The scenario of the 2 least LSBs being swapped, would greatly enhance detail, just because it is boosted by a factor of 256 in decimal, or 48 in dB. This would also boost the "quantization noise" and it would not create much of a black background.

Ok, I'll stop here because it is too far out.

Peter

Which is why I apologised up front. I appreciate that the "battle" is to reconcile differences playing under Windows 7 and 8, but ultimately it's what happens in the DAC that counts. Unless, you are really are doing DSP on the sly ...  ;)

I'll keep my big mouth shut from now on ...!  :innocent:,  :whistle:

Frank

Mwah. No. Or yes, but no. Not in this context.
So regarding our little subject on W8 - I think you must be somewhat longer around to see that it never happened before that people so much couldn't find agreement.


Now don't laugh. This is NOT about what happens in the DAC (ultimately or not), and it IS about DSP which seems to be applied.

It won't take long now before I will have proven that ...
Anyone taking bets ?

What part, if any, of the audio foundation in Win8 does XXHE utilize?

For those in dual ( or more ) boot .

I have been playing last a lot of stuff .
I did find out that XXHE sounds so much different depending on where and how it is installed ! .

Last night then , I have been opening my D disk from windows 8 , D where the W7 installations reside  , and launching XXHE from there , from the original W7 installation folder . Been also able to (re) activate it from W8 and with the new W8 code ( obtained via paypal) .
Voilà . I invite * you * to try this and report about how much difference there is between that and the actual XX installed in W8 ( say C or also Ramdisk ). All I can say is that it plays right : the smearing is gone ( imo ) and the f***ed up caracter also .

One thing , as far as I am concerned , unattended doesnt work , it has to be revised . Minimized is OK . But please no unattended :-)

I used the W7 "explorer " as Admin and in compatibility mode ( W7 again ) .


Have a nice day all

s

Attacched som details of the system and the XXactivated from the D disk .

Stefano,


It will be a bit of a language problem, but are you saying that when Unattended is used it does not sound good ?
(normal interpretation tells me that you get errors and can't use it, but I don't think you want to say that)

Let us know.
Peter

Yesss Peter and all , it means it does work all ok by purpose , but it does suddenly sound another thing from attended , and I don't like it , or does not "sound good " to me .

thanks

To me this reads as Attended not sounding good, implying that Unattended sounds good.

But did you want to say that ? :scratching:

Peter

Huh? It seems totally clear to me that Stefano does not like Unattended.

Mani.

i do mean i prefere attended :-)

Ok, totally clear now. Thanks.

Jud, I already typed a sort of extensive reply, but it is/was a bit moot because a. the answer you seek is not known anyway and b. what I was suggesting in that not posted post by now is proven by me ...

Later.
Peter

... But since I have proven it anyway, if you provide me a picture of the WASAPI audio stack, which does not seem to exist for W8, I can show you.

I don't mean the picture about hardware offloading (like it in XP still worked) or anything about ARM/Surface WASAPI capabilities ...

Peter

Ah, maybe I should delete the two threads I've just started on CA and WBF, asking if anyone has any insights about what might be causing W8 to sound weird.

Looking forward to hearing what you've come up with though...

Mani.

I will see if I can get hold of something, because I'm very curious to learn something about this, regardless of the happy fact (for all of us) you have found what you were seeking.

Well, I was not successful.   :(

The nicest diagram I could find was from back in Vista days.  I only found a couple of interesting pages of comments that seem to me to directly contradict each other, and the WASAPI page from the MS Developer Network library.

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winappswithnativecode/thread/a6785334-f7f5-4f4c-b02c-0bfaf7e94643/

http://blog.cakewalk.com/windows-8-a-benchmark-for-music-production-applications/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd371455(v=vs.85).aspx

But I hope you will be kind enough to give a little explanation anyway.   :thankyou:

Peter mentioned earlier regarding noise caused by a SMPS in a display on his hifi ring main.

My system has a dedicated and separately earthed (spike in garden) mains supply via a dedicated balanced transformer. NOS1, PC and the amp are the only items plugged into that dedicated supply. Alas Bluetooth and remote control do not work for me under W8 so a display and keyboard have returned to my living room. No real problem with that. The display is plugged into the house ring main (an outlet is nearby). And of course I did make sure that the earth of the display is completely isolated from the PC (connecting the mains ring earth to the hifi mains earth would have been a very bad thing to do with a balanced supply).

So after listening for a while last night I unplugged the display from the mains. The result was a noticeable (but not earth shattering) improvement in resolution. But with the display plugged in the SQ is still very fine indeed not edgy. But there is definitely an improvement without the display plugged in.

Nick - something else for you to hear in your visit. We could drive ourselves completely nuts with all the things we have to listen to this time ha ha.

Paul

Hello,

I have been following the W8 thread green of envy from the distance because I had reflashed the Audiotrak Prodigy HD2 soundcard in order to use ESI drivers and ESI has not provided drivers for W8. Audiotrak has W8 drivers ( VIA Envy) but I was too afraid to revert the situation because I fried my previous soundcard messing with it. But despite of that I couldn't resist myself to jump into the bullring though I could use the MoBo soundard only and guess what, the W7(1.08 version) ESI drivers works in W8. :dancing:
Is too early to give conclusions but the sound seems to be better overall. Although I am not a happy NOS user I am using  Peter's settings as starting point.
The only drawback is that I have some problems with unattended: cover doesn't appear and commands dont´t work properly. Probably this issue has been addressed somewhere but I have not read the thread exhaustively yet and besides that there is my low level comprehension issue (and not only in english I'm afraid) :rules: :dntknw:

Maxi

Good to be persistent Maxi.
And indeed, Coverart does not work in Unattended for W8.

Peter

There is no way back to W7. Although it sounds very detailed (sorry Peter) and pleasant, there was a lightweight
presentation compared with W8. The sound in W8 is rich, fullbodied and crystal clear, by far more engaging and natural to my ears.

Maxi

At last I now have clean W7 and W8 installs - totally clean without any unnecessary software. For the first time in a long time both W8 and W7 (totally separate discs) work absolutely fine with no random stops and no error messages. No more bluetooth / RDC installs for me - oh boy have they caused problems on my system.

Listening to W8 versus W7 it is still the case that I much prefer W8 it is crystal clear, instruments sound more natural the individual strands of music are easier to follow. By comparison W7 sounds a tad opaque. Individual strands of music not so easy to follow. BUT I have to say there are times when the sound stage does sound odd. Since I heard mono with very strange effects returning to stereo sounds a little odd. But then again I put a high quality recording on and the sound stage is fantastic. Jury is out on that. But anyway for me those are not important the detail and timbre of instruments always is the most important thing for me and W8 sounds fantastic in those respects.

If there is a problem with W8 I just hope that fixing it does not reduce what I like about W8.

Paul

All right. So, it has gone quiet here eh ? Well, let's stirr a bit then. Ok, not to stirr deliberately, but it will happen anyway.

Many have spent much time on Windows 8 and I am not counting myself out. But it seems that the time spent is to no avail. Or rather at least I thought to better spend my time on Windows 7 again and which is what I sort of promised further down in this topic; apply the things learnt from Windows 8 and how to get that better, to Windows 7. And so I did the past two weeks (or was it only one week ? I forgot).

I started to post this 4 days ago but thought to wait till the listening session of the day had passed to be more sure. And so 3 more listening sessions passed and yes I am sure.

What I did I could have done just as well over 2 years ago and as I told before, just motivate me. And so, stupid Windows 8 motivated me. Let's say we can hear goodies from it but the baddies are overwhelming; and with the goodies as a reference, how to squeeze that out of Windows 7 ...

Easy ...

Ok, not so easy at all, and the result is that W7 is now on a tight rope, balancing from left to right and just not falling over. Just not. Or maybe it will at yours, but not here.

With these riddles in the background, this is what I could squeeze out :

- Stereo image as "separated" as W8, but integrated;
- Square sounds are way more profound but they now carry a roar. Envelope and decay are heard no matter their high frequency;
- Long lasting cymbals with a tonality in between "old W7" and W8;
- Detail in the mid which exhibits complete new instruments in known tracks;
- Unsurpassed undistorted higs (hey, PeterSt uses SFS=1 !);
- Freshness from older albums which were "dead"/flat before;
and last but foremost not least :
- Totally completely nothing wrong with it.

And W8 is totally wrong. Just because I say so. :scratching: Ok, - think so.

Why am I posting this ?
Because I see more and more people runnning into problems for various reasons; Not everybody is easy on installing OSes and while "dual boot" sounds like space ships they upgrade and can't go back. This, while there's actually nobody who is happy with it and those who seem to be, have to be aliens.

Nobody should try Windows 8 only because it seems interesting.

It may be interesting all right, but all you will receive is a large dose of annoyance. You won't get it right because it is not right. And if it is, I personally can't get it there which is important.

So, I turned the world upside down and created a W7 which is so d*mn good that you won't have any reason ever anymore to try W8. There will be no doubt, and more importantly : all the "interesting" from W8 will be in W7, and all what's left in the comparison is the strangeness of W8. :bye:

Nobody needs to agree with this, and everybody not agreeing certainly is allowed to speak up as much as he wants. It is nothing to fight over you know. But it may be good to know that I gave up and without new insight it will stay like that.

Your new W7 will be up in something like 10 hours from now.
Peter

Peter,

Mouthwatering stuff, really looking forward to hearing this.

 :prankster:

Nick.

Okay, then let's wait up for that version...  :)

Bert

Peter - very interesting looking forward to it - don't know how you find the time but glad you do  :)

Paul

-2 will be very interesting to try, especially looking at your settings, Peter.  I already know my computer doesn't like to have Cool When Idle set at 0.  And your SFS is set to 1 while currently I'm in the stratosphere at 450; you've got Q1 at 7 while I've currently got mine set to 14 with a factor of 2.  So the new version apparently brings on some real changes.  We'll see whether I get the best sound out of my modest rig with them or if I will have to go for something different, knowing from the start that Cool When Idle will have to be set to 1 here.

At some point I suppose that Windows 8 bridge will have to be crossed.  Would you be willing to give some explanation (just because I am curious, no better reason) of why it just isn't right at this time, being as cryptic as you like?

Jud,

I am not cryptic at all when I say that I just can't get it right and there's not even a small margin. At least here the sound is annoying, annoying and annoying; must pick proper albums to enjoy some music, and I am not used to that. I like to play 1 hour of music in an hour and not spend 45 minutes of that hour to find an album which sounds right.

I have no other logical explanation than too few noise on one side (which is far sought anyway) and too many strange things going on at the other (one of them the "raw screen" being a form now).

I know I told about having found something. So, maybe I did. But I can't proove it. So I gave up on that and never mind.

And now think further : I can spend my time forever on something which *may* get right in the end, but I decided to give W7 a go on the very same subjects/improvements I tried to apply on W8 and in a week (or two) time I could improve W7 more than W8 ever will do (as it seems). So, where should the time be spent ?

Right.

Yes, when I said the Win8 bridge will have to be crossed some time, I was thinking more of Win7 EOL (or when no one else is doing application updates for it), not anything more immediate than that.

I am ready to eat my own words. :drool:

Maxi

... which appears to be 8.5 hours. I must have forgotten something ...
:whistle:

What I use for W7 is in my sig as of February 16 (2013 hehe).
Have fun - I hope !
Peter

Well I am excited to try this new version, but I still have 4 hours to wait until I leave for home... :(

"When the Best even got better" :) Can't wait... But have to...

Alain

Hi
I went back to a fresh W7 install. Dutch.
I only installed Updates, no security stuff. Should I throw it all out again, as you wrote?
Unfortunately my old codes did not work anymore.
So I should Paypal I gess?
Lot of questionmarks, but I am affraid I know some answers..
Good times with W7.5!
Ed

You only have to wait until you're home but then please do NOT forget to set XX (better talk OS) in normal state before you update.

For the first time I forgot this and now I have to re-install W7 again to have things working properly!!!!!!!  :blob8:

Bert

Not intentional Bert. What happened ?
(read : that should just have worked IMO)

Peter

I can't go back to normal state (needs to be activated) and the other problem is not being able to activate (which was always possible in W7 (even after a new installation) using the same code...).

I can't use a previous state of the OS either (minimised does not support that).

Bert

Edit: Too late for this evening anyhow, I already turned off the PC getting ready to go "home" and have a decent drink.

I just loaded 9z-8-2 under W7 and it certainly does sound like W8. All the good aspects I liked under W8 are there now and I just played Dinah Washington "Mad About the Boy" which under W8 could strip wallpaper and now it sounds listenable. So I am not tempted to go back to W8.

I have also lowered SFS=1 and Q1=7 (as in Peters signature) and it is even better.

More impressions again when I have had more of a chance to listen further.

Paul

I installed with Windows 7 Professional and there was oly one error message after starting unattended the first time with the new settings. I'm using Peter's settings actually.

The music is absolutely terrific, full of emotions, so sweat and detailed at once. Never thought to hear such an exquiste improvement again. I'm collecting additional voices and instruments again ...

Georg

Stefano, maybe I don't understand what you want to do. I can say Yes, but the remainder is up to you ... Anyway I think I know what you are doing, so you will be OK at all times ?

Peter

Bert, man, it actually has been a long time that you couldn't get something done while others had problems (not sure whether I have my symantics right). Please feel free to email me in more detail what happened now, because at this moment I can't get it.

Have a good night of sleep (at home) anyway !
Peter

Paul,

Might I have won you, I should have won all, right ?
But be honest about it. That is sufficient ...

Regards,
Peter

The installation of 09-z82 on W7 went fine (once I managed to down load it  :) ). First impressions are of a land mark release ! W8 levels of detail but with warmth and ambiance. Transients are in a totally different place, fast with the correct levels of weight / delicacy. Timing is superb (not a strong point in W8 for me) familiar tracks are bowling along beautifully.

Many thanks to you Peter.

Cheers Nick.

Also for me installation went great . All fine from activation to minimized and stop all services in unattended . Listening . Timing is very good yesss , and Sound !


Thanks

stefano

Peter , I have seen your response after the installation . Well I did all ok in W7 . No worries .

Thanks again :-)

Honey, I'm home !!! A little late, but certainly not going to bed without trying this new piece of art AGAIN :)

Alain

Hi Bert,

You kind of saved my life... I was about to trigger the new version without first going back in Normal OS mode...

Thanks :)

Alain

Peter - I listened for some time last night and the jury is still out (partly because I got to be "brain dead" after so much comparing) more (relaxed!) listening tonight.

Of course I will be objective ha ha  - Nick is coming over soon - I am sure he will provide his usual honest and balanced view.

Cheers

Paul

Have a look at this, particularly at the manufacturer's response:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/508-t-elektroakustik-dac-8-review/

Well Jud, at VERY fast glancing over this, the only conclusion I can have from it is : again totally inconsistent. So, veiled, less high frequency output ? I guess that is the last thing we would say in this forum. Or ?

Thanks for the link,
Peter

I might add (without bad intentions whatsoever) : The reviewer, owning an Alpha and liking that (still, as far as I know) very much, judges "lacking highs" ?
I mean, if anything is lacking highs it is this DAC I just mentioned (I just tried to cover it up somewhat :)).

So, totally inconsistent. But isn't that just Windows 8 ?

Peter

Hi, Peter.  My thinking was more along the lines that the manufacturer says "Gee, everyone liked USB best before Windows 8 and its new USB driver, now the first review after Windows 8 likes another input better."

Just wondering if the driver or something else low level in Win8 audio specific to USB may be responsible for the problems we're all hearing.  Of course that is terribly vague since I don't really know anything, but perhaps it might give you a clue?

So, this all went quiet, but I never stopped. Well, I worked on W8 by bits and pieces because I never wanted to experience music through W8 (it drove me crazy and felt another listening night would be wasted for the xth time), but eventually I think I got it nailed.

I must say that I have been motivated and also inspired by my off-line "pal" who refuses to post in the forum and often when I was listening to W7 he came up with another thing to try. Also I can well say that the later bunch of tweaks sprung from trials of the same person, which I extended to the (hopefully) more real thing. Same person who -for me- came up with the NOS1 USB3 connection. And yes I know, for us all this was Nick (who was one day later IIRC). I only want to say : some guys really are able to bring audio playback to a next level. And the big fun in this W8 case ? while this hiding person inspired me to keep on trying with discrete ideas and hunches (which I worked out), it again is Nick who actually solved this whole W8 issue.
Not that Nick knows this ...

Now briefly read this post : Re: PCI supply rail noise (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2551.msg26704#msg26704).

To be on the safe side (hence a sort of disclaimer) : I applied two (actually three) changes at the same time (stupid, but I couldn't test in proper fashion otherwise) : Besides adding the "PCI Supply Rails Noise" card I used an older Sharkoon USB3 dock for the hdd with music I wanted to try, plus I plugged this to the front USB3 "hub" while I otherwise I put the USB3 disks in the back port "hub", together with the NOS1. So, a different USB3 hub and a different USB3 hdd device.
And the "noise" card.
(don't get confused - the whole thing is solved by this card IMO)

Well, I see people sometimes scream about how SQ changed/improved, and of course I believe that. But what I won't believe is whoever encountered such a huge difference like I see coming from this.

So as we know W8 doesn't cut it for its various staging strangenesses which I personally bind to a too much "accurate" (??) representation which is so dynamical that the sound is drawn to the speakers too much (won't get coherent in mid-air or something) and besides that one could get crazy of the (way too high) dynamics. How this emerges is beyond me, but I think in my situation - which is the "XXHighEnd PC" - things are somewhat emphasized. So, I can recognize for some longer that the better the "playback" becomes - but also the better the PC "is" - the more this phenomenon occurs. Thus, the latest XXHighEnd versions tend to do a bit of what W8 does inherently, and/but on the "XXHighEnd PC" this is more profound. Notice that the XXHighEnd PC contains both a W7 and a W8 boot and the W7 boot there goes more towards the W8 sound than my normal audio PC (which also went the direction of W8 sound for the latest XXHE versions, but far less).

Now, mainly thinking about the brain-cracking dynamics of W8 as we know it, with the card in the PC (but mind the other two changes as well), there is no spur of anything of brain-cracking dynamics left. And as a matter of fact, the whole lot went in the exact opposite way, and merely comes across as blanketed. Still not quite because of the super refined highs and all the details remaining.

The mid is unheard (IMO) and a possible minus is that maybe there's a gap between the mid and those super refined highs now. However, I played with this for two days only and this is not enough. Surely it is not enough thinking about re-tuning XXHighEnd for this situation, which I did not at all. I just used the same settings all the time.

What you also won't know is that what I use here for XXHighEnd settings was extended with more than one new SQ "dial" and it was again made for W8 several weeks back. It improved W8 again, but didn't help enough. However, that too was used the past two days, and although I know its separated performance (separated from the other three changes subject to this post), I think these "dials" highly contribute to what I perceive now.
Anyway notice that this is for the due 0.9z-9 so at this moment you will not be able to try all, as I can over here at this moment.

Assumed that the card is doing this - which for me is likely because it is exactly what I bought it for, its effect is the most severe of anything I personally ever saw for a change. Do notice though that from the same theory I bought it for/from, this will ADD noise to a system which contains too few of it. Assumed this really is so, we apparently finally got to the stage of eliminating too much noise sources (which all together will randomize to more "white") while the few sources left are thus profound. That they, in the mean time, can imply something like we call "higher dynamics" is the sheer danger I have been talking about so often.
But maybe my theories are not correct at all.

Please don't blame me when afterwards this card doesn't do much at all and my situation as of now is caused by something else (again, see the other two changes). But even then, the most important of it all is that W8 "can be done". No doubt about that. Whether now better than W7 ? I tend to think so. But first it may take me a couple of weeks to get used to the sound and tweak it for a maybe less blanketed thing. The new "dials" add a sort of infinite new means of tweaking anyway, and I tried one setting only.

For those interested, see by current Sig.

I think you are allowed to setup your W8 machines, but I beg you to do that in dual boot fashion with your current W7. Or otherwise invest some time in setting up W7 again such that it can be a dual boot with W8.
In the mean time I will finish 0.9z-9; should be this week somewhere (but don't pin me down on it).

Peter

You are right of course. I think June 26th (2013) there will be some preview version out.

Regards,
Peter

Windows 8.1 will be for free for every W8 owner.

Hi Peter, I´m using W7 but I´ve made the changes you have done for W8 and my SQ improved notably. I had two hdd inside with music that were connected to SATA III, now none of these hdd are inside the computer and are connected to an USB 3.0 hub which is at the same time connected to a mb USB 3.0 port. The USB 3.0 hub is independently powered so it doesn´t take the power from the computer. The other change I´ve done, as you suggested, is to put the Playback drive inside the computer and connected to SATA III. Finally the Filter card remains where it was, filtering the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCIe card. Previously I had the Playback drive connected directly to the USB 3.0 TeckNet card where also was (and still is) connected the NOS1.
I don´t know about W8 but in W7 this changes made the best sound ever so far in my system, I´m now in the third day with this configuration and the SQ remains stable and sounding beautifully. The sound is clear, the soundstage firm and the bass tuneful, the final notes seem to never reach the end, they remain sounding lower and lower and lower until I can clearly hear where the sound stops. I don´t want to touch anything now, I wouldn´t like to touch it I mean, but...I suppose that the evolution will continue.

Best regards,
Juan

Peter - Today I´ve installed XX in the W8 partition I had in the same hdd where I also have W7. I´m using exactly your W8 settings. All I can say so far is that it works, at this hour in the morning in Saturday I can´t play yet at normal volume level but the first impression is of a great sound. I´ll report after sometime about SQ, I know that I can´t experience the same as you due that you are using now a new XX version, but anyway so far it looks ok.

Best regards,
Juan

Well, all *I* can say is dat I yesterday removed the "PCI Noise card" and it *still* works here !

Of course I made it all confusing by posting about it in this topic as well as in the card's topic, but I honestly couldn't have both as a separate single subject, because the card DOES matter, and a lot !

But not for the better - not for Windows 8.

:scratching:

So to be clear : I now finally have W8 working in a fashion that I don't feel any urge to go back to W7. Not only that - W8 performs better than W7 now. It does so for the time I am playing with W8 again, which is close to a week. Trouble is : for most of the days this was with the PCI card in.

As you may have read from me in the card's thread "it can't go wrong, it sounds fully analog - FOR THOSE WHO LIKE THAT". Add to this the more or less blanketed feeling and you know what it is about.

No snap.

And this latter became very apparent when I removed the card and (this time) didn't change a single other thing.
Right away the square roar of Jon Lord's B3 was there and more so than I ever heard. It scared me a little because it seemed prone to too high dynamics again. But that didn't happen. Not last nigh at least and with nothing I tried to play for different types of music. :)

The "snap" is key. Without that all is too refined and of not too much interest. Fact seems to be : the PCI card is doing this. So, what about a noisy (adding) beast ?!
It just has to be so.

Again I played Who do we think we are, and this time it sounded as I wanted it. All the singing was back, and the accuracy could be heard again. This opposed to the blanket which only showed "analog" and nothing much the accuracy of the NOS1 can show. Nice for many perhaps, but (as said in the other topic) quite braindamaging.
What a releaf.

But the best releaf is that W8 finally works (can work).

I still don't know for 100% what exactly "created" this, but it very well can be the usage of the other USB3 hub. So, NOS1 in its own - USB3 disks in its own.
Otherwise the XXHighEnd tweaks may be too many by now to interpret how what contributes, my 0.76Ghz processor speed not the least. It will be too hard to track back all. :sorry:
And I must say, all the little enhancements helped for sure, but I never really got there before. Now it works though, and people following my settings should be able to at least obtain the enhancements I achieved myself, outside the PC itself (which really allows for different stuff, sadly).

I changed my sig again with maybe emphasis on the "All Services shut off" which sneaked in there for the first dedicated W8 settings I put up, but which really can happen with 0.9z-9 only (but which I used for well over a month already).

Now let's put up that 0.9-z9 soon ...
Peter