XXHighEnd

Uh-oh, it is awfully quiet in here. Maybe that is not a good sign. Or maybe by now everybody is afraid to say something ? Don't hold back please.

In the mean time I have something to say myself :

Yesterday, playing somewhat different material than the days before, I suddenly noticed a strange "shrillish" (?) kind of resonance in voices (actually it was the voice of Steve Miller). Before that I already heard a not-so-nice Jensed Gad album (from Enigma) and actually on purpose played ELO, knowing that this can sound "grey-ish" or better, always does but it can be the familiar sound from ELO, or it can be annoying. And so the latter was the case, although I never heard it so refined.
And so I started digging what it could be, and after two hours of changing settings (:swoon:) I found this :

This is my normal Audio PC with the 870 processor and it can easily take 85 for Balanced Load (won't run hot). And so I had it set at 85 to have it all not unnecessary slow. However, I already know that above a certain value there is something going on which I don't like and the higher Balanced Load is set, the worse this gets. And so I set it to 43 (the minimum where it is still active) and the culprit had vanished.

It is my suspicion that this will count for everybody, and do notice that I have seen at least one post (I forgot from whom) who noticed similar. Although that post implied that the lot running more hot -or actually would imply PSU noise) would not be the best (I now think it was Mani) but personally I don't think it is about the that; it is just that OS behaviour I see which nicely resembles what I now heard. Although what we hear is at micro level and we can't see that (unless I create home-brew plots for it; might even be a good idea).

Later I played the same Jens Gad again, and nothing wrong was with it anymore.


FYI:
It is always good to now and then try stuff from Enigma (or Gad) and/or from ELO. You must know it well to use it as a reference, but when you start with it today, it will be that reference soon. Why ? because the both contain I-don't-know-what for a sort of greyness because of high frequencies which can become flawed or nasty. A special means of recording perhaps - I don't know. Btw, yesterday I for the first time heard how refined the cymbals in ELO actually can be. And so that is what I mean - it is special somehow and therewith good as test material. Just to play when you think you are all set with whatever you have new, and to check whether all really is right, because albums like from these artists should sound better just the same. When not, something went in a strange direction.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I am a little surprised too, but since I am still discovering the NOS1, I can only say that the sound is... Wonderful ! :) I tend to take it as a "whole" and sometimes I will hear a new detail that I never heard before. This tells me that the micro-information is even more present and for me it is for the better.

At some point, I have to admit that maybe I should think about getting another amplifier... Not that the one I have is bad, but I am sure I could hear better...

but I tend to to check for the voices and the percussions, provided that the recording is good, but even then I am discovering with the NOS1 that certain recordings are not as good as I thought with my previous combination (converter + dac)...

But we are in February, it is cold, all seems "slower" than normal and from my perspective, to feel that the temperature is getting for the better could surely help. Not very technical thoughts, but very true also :)

Alain

About ELO, would "Fire on High" (from Face the Music) be a good sample of what you mention ?

Alain

Hi Peter,

I was just about to write something about my first experience with 0.9z-8-2, a little too late.

I have been following remotely (vacation, traveling) the news on Win 8, but never tried it myself.

I was just happy to get 8-2 up and running with no problems yesterday late at night and only played one CD (Moddi - Floriography).

What can I say - just terrific, hillarious, unbelievable sound.

More particular (with this incredibly dense music heard) you have achieved a very emotionally involving music representation. I am not so much focused on the last "bing" of a drumset, what counts more for me is the musical flow, the rhythmicality (? dont know if this word exists in English), the ambience of a recording room, the "physical presence" of instruments - all is perfect now, never have had my system playing at this level. Soundstage is huge, bass has right, precise contour (but not overweight, have to listen more double bass jazz music tonight to judge "crispiness"). Male voice of Moddi is at its best, focused, but not small, huge body and all details there, not analytical but integrated into a great representation of the voice. Channel separation is perfect, I might want to change the inclination angle of my speakers just to get a little more center, will try on the weekend.  

And yes, I had this effect that you described above (like a litte "echo", just once, thought it might be on the recording but never heard it before because now I sensed so many new details. Good to know that there is a fix for it, my processors run at 75 degree with the current settings, so a less temp demanding setting is appreciated.

Overall: I told my wife when I went to bed: "Yes, yes, yes crazy Peter did it again" (actually I said "the crazy dutch guy dit it again"... sorry, its my way of highest appreciation for the piece of art you have given to us), I was totally in emotional flow about this great release (so far, just one CD heard, more impressions if you like after the weekend).

Thanks for it, Peter. For me it works.

Carsten

(sorry, have not yet updated my sig)

There is one thing I never talked before. I can't recall when it happened, but I never really got powerful bass with my System 15 (15" dual concentric transducers), thus I got subs to compensate, but even so I did not get much bass.

It happens sometimes though that I listen while the subs are inactive (and the supertweeters stay "covered", as I don't find it easy to adjust their position over the mains). I get the best phase and coherence then.

One day (a few months ago), I thought my subs were active, because I was feeling a lot of good bass vibrations (not as "Boom Boom", simply more present and refined). No change on my part, no nothing, but maybe a change of version in XXHE. I don't recall with what version it occured to me, but I heard this bass coming from the mains and I was quite surprised. I always heard it, but not with that depth.

I never cared for the acoustics of my rooms, I just took what was there. But for the moment, I am not really interested in changing that acoustic, because what I get is always for the better...

And I have to admit that if I was to attempt putting acoustic panels on the wall, I would be banned from my own home ! ;)

And there is something I still have to get rid of: this nasty habit of feeling that the HF should be more prominent... This is an heritage of bad speakers listening (and bad digital dacs)... Many centuries ago, when I was recording my LPs on a cassette deck, I used to record with the Dolby ON, but listen with it OFF... I did not care about the tape hiss, since I preferred to have more treble than less...

And this nasty habit got the best of me for decades...

Finally, since I like to hear agressive electric guitar, the edginess and "metallic" feel of digital seemed to suit me better... Because something was lacking in my mind compared to vinyl. Now I understand that it was not the same, because there was always a veil over the CD sound. Not anymore...

So yes, I come from afar... :)

Alain

Peter,

I totaly agree with the above!!

How do you do it!!  :clapping:

Thanxxxxxx!!!!  :)

Hi Peter,

Don't worry  be .............. .

Bass is perfect now, very tight. Have some problems with the heights, which are less accented now, and I will fiddle around with the settings now.

Joachim

Hi,
I tried 8-2 on my netbook, but going into minimised os is not possible. I get the message to inform Phasure....... I do not have W7 Ultimate, that might be the reason. So i went back to the previous xxhe version.
On my netbook I do not use xtweaks because of the noise that is added. I think similar to what Peter posted.
regards, Arjan

Arjan, check your Activation.
Peter

Hello,
In my case the application of the XXTweaks implies a lowering of the multiplier factor from 7,5 to 6 and thus a decrease in the CPU frequency from 2,4 to 1,9 MHz. As I pointed in an older post,  I downsized the FSB,  as Boleary suggested at that time, which is also a drop in CPU frequency, and it meant a improvement. Currently, besides the change in the multiplier factor, I've also lowered the fsb size so that the CPU is running at 1.7 MHz and I think there is some more improvement. So this seems to make sense. Of course there has to be a limit or at least an ideal point somewhere.

Otherwise, after a new W7 installation (again),  :heat:  I don't want to rush in my estimation about the 0.9z-8-2 (Windows 7) version, so I don't need to eat my words again, but it sounds very promising. :)

Maxi

My first impression of 9Z8-2 is very similar to Joachim's. Everything sounded really wonderful except the "highs" which seem to lack the sense of "real presence:" the feeling that Eva, Joni, or The Wailing Jenny's, are actually in the room. It occurred to me when I was A-Bing that the magic of 9Z8-d or e is also its downfall. There is a depth to the high end that provides a kind of tonal richness that very much mimics "reality." However, if the volume is the least bit too loud or the singer moves too close to the mike that tonal richness breaks down and literally sounds ragged, sharp or hard edged.

Unfortunately my listening session was only an hour long so I need to do more listening, which may not happen for a while cause things at work are crazy busy. 

Hi Brian,

A couple more suggestions (besides Peters balanced load setting of 43 which works really well here), given we have the same mobo etc, these may also help with top end. Your probably doing these already but here goes.

In windows device manager, disable the two USB 2 ports on the mother board. Having these two USB ports enabled in device manager is the kiss of death for high frequency SQ on my PC.

Another thing to try is checking the box to give priority to background services in Computer => manage => advanced system settings => advanced => performance => settings => advanced => background services. This may have SQ effects elsewhere but seems to clean up the highs.

Cheers,

Nick.

Nick, I saw you mentioning the latter elsewhere already, but I don't think it is a good idea. There is too much involved to sort of "claim" that this works out for the better. It may change the sound though.

No problem to try it, if you only know that all the priority schemes are controlled already so the least you will achieve is messing with that hence make it inconcistent. May still sound better, but no logic will apply to anything anymore, especially when people have problems.

That's all !
Peter

By the wayyyy ...

If the general consensus is going to be that the higher frequency output is lessend, then I don't understand one f*ck of that. I never had such high frequency (for level) output before. And I think it is this reason why I now heard that strange kind of reverberation in s-es. But not sure. At least no any SFS setting and what not helped a bit to that, which is what I right away expected. I couldn't even hear a difference on the high frequencies when SFS was set to good old 430. Maybe we suffer from washing machine desease over here.

Anyone with horns who can agree with MORE higher frequency output (W7 !) ?

Thanks Nick. I already have all usb ports, except renesis, turned off in Device manager. Will give the "Priorities" tweak a listen when I get a chance. Am wondering though if you've formed any opinions on 9Z8-2 versus other 9Z8 versions (as used in W7)?

Peter,

Thanks for providing the background. To be honest I don't do much OS tweaking at all nowadays because you have covered most (all  :) ) of the angles. In light of your comments I think I will back the config change off my system.

Cheers,

Nick.

In the only 2 minutes i listened this morning to 8-2 in min OS, this was not particularly apparent to me.

I will respond again after some more listening, but first I have to sort out some strange power outages in our house (in daytime).

Regards, Coen

My ears (not just that!) are out of service for one week... some f*king virus caught me by surprise.

Bert

Peter,

Defiantly getting more and first rate HF here with 09-z82. I just tried the balanced load setting of 43. Before this setting there was sensible amplitude level in the highs but they lacked sparkle and had a small amount of smear. With the balanced load setting there is plenty of HF output and the sparkle and clarity is back, very very nice.

I tried some ELO (Out of the blue), you absolutely put you finger on ELO recordings sounding grey. I get a great sense of nostalgia from ELO but always just put up with the "Telstar" (remember the label that put 20+ tracks on a side of vinyl) style of compression I was hearing. That is not the case now. There is life in the recording at last  :). Great.

I had had to lower the output level on my subs to balance them with the highs as they were. With the extra HF amplitude and clarity, I have just put a couple of extra notches (estimate 1.5 db) into the bass to balance the increased HF output.

Elsewhere I feel the mids can be slightly recessed, vocals stand back in amplitude on some albums. Anyone else getting this ?

Nick.

Geeze, can't wait to get a chance to hear the balanced load setting @ 43.

Oh Nick, no need to do that ! And certainly not if it helps you. But as more often, you know better what to do (AND go back when needed) than others. I don't think it is even dangerous to try. But you know, it is one of the most obviously present settings in the OS and even I never touched it just because I know it would molest the balance XXHighEnd set up.

So please, go ahead. But (for everybody) don't ever forget that you changed this (and that I think it can't be good, but this is really not all that important here).

Peter

Yea, something like that (era). "Eldorado" times.
And this answers Alain's question which I forgot to answer.

Peter

Well Bert, so sorry to hear that. You know how often my ears say bye to me for sometimes months never knowing when they come back and if they are. The worst ? demoing and not being able to hear yourself and "hoping ...".
Now ? now it has been over a year that nothing happened. So statistics tell that it should hit soon and hard. :o

One thing : if you can't hear a f*cking thing there's always more time for f*cking around, right ?

Beterschap man !
Peter

Well with some nervousness I downloaded this new version and following the correct procedure, installed, activated and played some tracks.

Gosh it all worked perfectly and well the sound is something else.

Certainly another step up in sound but I'd say, much more 3D with more weight, detail and clarity. Loving it, now I have to listen to all my favourite tracks again and ignore the family.

I have no interest in W8 yet or can compare to it.

Robert

Here are my experiences with two nights of listening to 0.9z-8-2. I moved from 0.9z-8-a, and didn’t try W8 (for now).
I listened to Jazz and Rock mostly. What strikes me is that I hear an even smoother, more pleasant sound, much more “analogue” (yes it’s a cliché, but still describes it well).
I hear a more open soundstage and a more realistic tone or timbre. On the Slow Motion album f.i. Andy Narell plays steel drum and these sound so much more “real” (detail and body).

The bass seems lower and has more texture. Very convincing.
The sound stage is wide, deep and open and comes from behind the speakers.
Some albums I used to listen to some tracks only as a reference to make comparisons, but this time I kept listening to the complete albums. It’s amazing to revisit all the albums I haven’t heard for ages.

However, there’s one downside. Because my speakers are not very efficient I have to play some albums at high volume settings (below -12dB). This was already the case with some albums when playing with the previous XXHE versions. With 0.9z-8-2 I seem to play at louder volume settings even further. But with Phase Alignment engaged when I end a track or an album ends I hear a sharp “crack” (high frequency) and my amps shut off in protection mode at louder volume settings (above -12dB =lower number).  :scare:
I only wish the NOS1 would have a slightly higher gain so I could use more convenient volume settings. Or is there any other remedy for this?

Stanley

Stanley,

Essentially your Q1 (x etc.) will be too low, while highering it may imply a higher SFS etc.

May it help : Notice that lowering the Device Buffer Size will bring a better granularity to Q1. So, set the DevBufSize to 2048 instead of 4096 and a Q1=8 from before now is to be 16. But while before Q1 could not be 9 (at SFS=2) it now may be able to do 17 which is just that tad higher. 18 is the same as before 9 so that won't go.

But the difference will be marginal. Far more can be done with a higher SFS (and then the higher Q1 !!) or by decreasing the SFS strength (unrelated to Q1 I think). Or shut off Phase Alignment at all.
Yea, well ...

Peter


PS: Or, just to be complete, use XLR while at this moment you use RCA.

After playing with both W8 and W7 with 0.9z-8-2 I agree with some others here. The sound seems to be clearer and more coherent in the new W7. On the contrary the sound in W8 seems fuller but in comparison with W7 it appears a little blurred, or better said, with some lack of exactitude in the placement of the instruments and voices. I perceive the same effect of misplacement or perhaps maybe it is just less sharpness when using Balanced Load=85 in W7.

With BL=43 the sound seems to have more precision and although some times seems to be a little dry it depends on the album; as in some albums the sound is beautifully smooth I believe that at BL=43 it reproduces with more fidelity what really is in the recording.

So far no problems at all (stops, etc.).

Juan

We just had to post something on this forum after we installed 0.9z-8-2 on W7 yesterday afternoon. As our review on 6moons already might have indicated that listening to digitized music other than through Peter's soft and hardware is no fun anymore - vinyl still is, but that's a different story - the latest iteration changed this perception. It is now, and only after a very short listening session, plain impossible. Whatever the wizard from Oene added to his software brew, one key ingredient is life (with an F). As the signature shows, we use a Phasure PC and NOS1 DAC and the Tweak section of XXHE is kept default except for the Cores setting. Amps on duty are Ncore 1200 based monos now in combination with Arcadian Audio Pnoe horns using full range AER MD3B drivers (100dB sensitivity).   

This combination sounded very good and quite close to live. With the latest 0.9z-8-2 this changed to Scary Lifelike for a reproduction. Where previous versions were very strong in processing the lower and mid frequency band, this version adds superb top range handling. The first strike on the drum kits' ride by Raice McLeod on Cheek to Cheek from the Eva Cassidy Live at Blues Alley album - okay, its a bit corny - just said it all. This is how music is supposed to sound in the home! Again, what Peter did, took or whatever revelation he had to get to this version will always be a mystery, but it works wonders.

With the previous version we already were on the way to get a true sub woofer to fill the void from around 50Hz down to 20Hz. Now we can't wait to add the ordered Zu Submission! 

9Z8-2, with Balanced Load at 43,  is so superior to 9Z8-d that's it's a bit embarrasing to think that my first impression was that vocals sounded better or more present on 8-d. After a good four hour listening session yesterday it became clear that the actual band, each and every instrument, and not just the singer is now present in my room. It's interesting though that this is a new sound and I really needed to do a long enough listening to overcome the bias in my mind for 9Z8-d. The most remarkable moment for me wasn't a vocal track, it was a Shubert violin/piano piece. Previously,with 8-d, when the violin was in the lead, the piano was barely perceptible--almost backround noise. With 8-2 the presence of the piano came to life and the interplay between the two  instruments  just unbelievably wonderful.

What a frickin' ride this is!!!

Hmmm,

I cant' lock in on settings with 8-2. I start out with sound that has great potential, tweak and tune, only to find myself losing interest in the music very fast the next day and set it all back to start all over. Next to that I cannot zoom in on settings, it sounds like 10 dB less loud (which reflects my volume settings) . It never gets annoying like all my win8 trials, but it refuses to get fantastic. 8-2 is extremely sensitive to settings, sometimes it really sounds strange, sometimes it is frightingly realistic (wood hitting riveted cymbals, never heard that before). The bad thing is that it sounds great one one album but not on the next.

The faults in my preferred 8e settings have become much more apparent.  Anorexic, sharp on the silibants and edges and a vague soundstage. Nevertheless time and again I find myself listening to and ejoying complete abums, never having the urge to leave my chair and change a setting. Dispite its wrongness something fundamental is very very right.

I've been wondering what it is that makes it so easy for my brain. Things that occur to me is that the instruments sound very fast and dynamically nuanced and echoes/reverb never seems to end. Maybe this is a side effect of the 'wrongness'. Drums and bass have impact and are perfectly timed with the rest of the music. 'Loose' and 'unrestrained' are words that come to my mind. These traits are found only with the very specific settings for my system. Even the disabeling of motherboard devices needs to be undone for maximum effect.

I am pretty shure this is more about the pc and dac than anything else. I had to change interlinks the other day because my unshielded diy cables started to pick up interference permanently. To support Peters opinion that cables do matter only little, I have found very little difference in sound dispite the fact that the cables could not be more different (copper vs silver, coax vs braid, wbt vs eichmann, 25 vs 5 years old).

Well, I hope the 8e qualities can be reconsiled with those of 8-2 one day,

Regards, Coen

Coen,

What happens when you ddo NOT activate "ALL Services" (shutdown) ? Well, assumed that you use that, or ?
Notice it needs a reboot for maximum (undoing) effect.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks, Coen,

I'm experiencing exactly the same. From one album to the other there are big big differences. Yesterday I had a piano-concerto of Saint Saens and it sounded so boring; I switched it off.. Other albums sound superb (Buddha bar 3 and similar albums). I also have the impression that the sound is some factors weaker from time to time.
I restarted several times but the same happens.

The funny thing was I didn't suspect z82.. I was carrying around with my loudspeakers, inspecting the cables and the phasing (which is important for my amplifier) and even thought he, my speakers are maybe a bit dull; but then I saw Coen's post..

Hope this helps, Peter,

Hein

Peter,

Thanks for the reply, I have checked the stop all services button now.  As I interpret your instruction: reboot to "normal" os, uncheck "stop all services" and reboot again to "min OS" and play 8-2.
I will try this.

I forgot to mention something important about my 8e setup. That is that i find it -sometimes much- easier to follow the musical melodies of instruments that are mixed into the "background" or "sides". Especially when the main instrument (usually a voice) kicks in.

@ Hein, thanks for your post. Tonight it happened again. This morning I enjoyed Henryk Szeryng playing Bach on 8-2 with a very realistic and melodious violin, but tonight it would not even do for background music. WTF?! The strange thing is that on 8e I never am bored with any music (provided that I like it).

Lets see what we can do next,

Regards, Coen

that's funny Coen ,
I have been to a live concert pratically a couple of evenings before the 0.9Z8-2 was out . Then tried it and I did imagine  that *nobody* would really mix a record or a live set the way I hear it playing with the new software . Then I realized I am not a Phasure NOS DAC user , and well ... never mind .

Generally I *tend* to prefer earlier versions also .
 We'll see . ( W7 )

Stefano

Hi Peter & Coen,

I did the following test:
-z82 with stop all services active. The sound was detailed, much black background but lacking 'body'
-z82 with 'stop all services' not active, reboot and again start up. A bit more punchy but more or less the same missing.
Then I went back to z81e and then the 'power' was there again. Just at that moment my wife passed by and she said 'hé, is it working again?'. I asked her what kind of difference she noticed and she answered: "The sound is fuller and more powerful"

Hope this helps Peter..  :unsure:

Hein

Speaking about Buddha Bar ...

Day before yesterday I put on XI which I actually never played before. I thought, ... yawn. Then into the 3rd track my wife told me "what a saltless album !".

Is it ?

Can't it be that we sort of compare apples to oranges when we now play with an SFS of 1 while it should be 2 for comparison ?

I've played 8-2 with SFS of 1, 1.5 and 2. Though different, this does not bring 8-2 alive so to speak.

I concur with Hein that 8-2 with "stop all services" off has more sparkle. In my brief listening I found character missing on voices, the violin and the saxophone. No grint if that is a word.

Regards, Coen

Hi,
Hein’s impression of the SQ with 8-1e is congruent to what I hear too.
8-1e is presenting a SQ with a bigger soundstage (more air around the instruments). When I’m sitting in the direct line between the speakers to tune XXH on the PC the music is around me.
The bass is not very controlled (thick and tubby compared to 7-5 what I remember).

During a replay with 8-2 the soundstage moves away from me to the front side of the room. I’m sitting in front of the soundstage now, not within anymore. The stereo image is more accentuated to a left/right separation with less air around the instruments. The holographic image is gone.
The bass improved a lot, I hear now more distinct pitches in bass notes.

Joachim

Joachim,

I think you are close to what my own description would be, but I don't see it negative anywhere (and up till now). But remember what I promised (in that Windows 8 topic) : The sound would go towards that of Windows 8 (mainly for the stereo imaging, but now in a normal way).

I know, this is a quite useless post and I only wanted to express that I can recognize what you say.

What I do not see (yet) is how it will be much different when this ALL Services (to shut down) is not activated. On the other hand, each small thing changes SQ a lot these days, so maybe I additionally applied something I forgot (or don't realize).

Thanks,
Peter

Thanx Peter,

SFS min back to 220,
- memory management is as per your explanation.

The outcome is: The holographic soundstage is back.

Joachim


P.S. I do believe the best performance with SFS=2 will be with an installation of XXH on a RAM Disc, so everything is in memory.

Well, the funny thing is that ever back in the Release Notes, when SFS Max was introduced, I told about the now more "infinite" combinations coming from SFS + SFS Max *IF* SFS Max would matter to the sound to begin with, and which I did not know at the time. Actually I still don't know, but I always keep my SFS Max to some higher value. It's a hunch (well, not really a hunch because I can expect it will matter). However, I never tried to A/B or try it in general.

So, SFS Max was created to go back and forth between SFS lower and higher values without the necessity of a reboot and was NOT created to influence SQ. But it could.

And so it does ?
Oh boy.
:swoon::swoon::swoon:

And then one more thing, but careful not to drop dead now;

*If* this really matters for a more holographic sound, it can be expected that in W8 it will matter too. What am I saying ? well, that in W8 it can well be that we should try to allocate the Contigious Memory (that's what this is all about) more towards the memory limit (the 16GB we may have in there). However, this is not possible and so it should be done the other way around : remove physical memory.

But nobody should try it unless you want to end up in mental hospital and I better try that myself some time.

Hmm ...

Before nobody understands, this comes from here : 0.9z-8-2 - Memory management (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2515.0)

Peter

Hi Peter,

yes, the Music was just right beteween my ears again, with the advantage, there is nothing between those!
 :)
Joachim

P.S. The stored "memory" increases from appr. 850MB to more than 1330MB on the fly.

Never mind my SFS Max = SQ related story ...

From that other topic I now derived that you just changed the SFS and not the SFS Max "only".

Difficult, communication ... :)

Hi Peter,

the SFS is 220 now, there is no spread  anymore. (before SFS min=2, SFS max=220)

Joachim

Just want to chip in on "stop all services"

Having tried "stop all services", for me this is a big improvement. I agree with the earlier descriptions. More weight, and tonal richness, cleaner and more detailed but smoother highs. Overall there is more sparkle that makes me want to keep listening.

Defiantly a preferred setting.

For reference this is with w7 09z-8-2
SFS 1.5 sfs max 180
Q1 = 7

Nick.

But reducing Memory can be done in OS this way , is that of some interest?

stefano

Or if you are using RAMdisks, just make them bigger to use more memory.

Jud, your idea feels good, but I don't trust this much. Never mind why for now, and I will try to work this out later.

Otoh, do not forget, this was about a perceived SFS Max changing SQ a great deal, but which was about a misundersting (which Joachim). So it may be a moot thing after all, unless someone is going to A/B it.

Regards,
Peter

Yeah, well, and by pure accident this does not work out well. I don't know why. I tried it myself the other day, and it wasn't respected. It will most probably do something somewhere, but at least in my normal environment it wouldn't work out.
Still a very good idea and I didn't think about this one.

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter,

changed SFS max as follows.


1. Replay with SFS max 241, stopped the file and
2. changed SFS max to 2,0 , now a replay with the accentuated left/right separation of the SQ
3. stopped the replay and changed SFS max back to 241. Started the file new and have now a holographic SQ again.

See the changes of memory volume in the taskmanager.

Joachim

And in both situations your SFS (not Max) was at ?

I've been playing with 8-2 with SFS of 220. This is the best so far.

No more stops or start refusals and the sound has consistency over playing sessions (I allways shut off the pc).

I also went back to "stop all services" activated. There was a lot more missing than just "grint".

Soundwise the low end is not to my liking -yet!?-. It suffers from restrained dynamics and the timing can be better (I know that it can!). I have no "holographic soundstage" experience (never did either), but I can support that there is a phenomenal instrument separation. Tone is also superb. Somewhere dynamics are lost though.

Regards, Coen

Bloody hell .............. .

A) First experience: button "Max the same as SFS" not engaged // SFS =2; SFSmax=241. Memory load is well below 1000MB. Result: accentuated left/right separation and the music plays at the wall behind the speakers. CPU activity: minor

B) button "Max the same as SFS" engaged // both SFS=241. Memory load is well above 1000MB. Result: 3D dimensional soundstage. CPU activity: much more than under A + C

C) button "Max the same as SFS" engaged // both SFS=2,0. Memory load is well below 1000MB. Result: accentuated left/right separation and the music plays at the wall behind the speakers. CPU activity: minor

The memory load seems to influence the SQ.

Joachim

EDIT: with Attended

Here is an interesting article

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/49247-32-holographic-soundstage

from "Anonymous  04-20-2004 at 01:38:01 PM"

Nope. The SFS is. You can (finally :)) see it on your own text now. If "memory load" as such would play "the" role, your A result would have been the same as B.

And let's not involve the "cpu activity" (or quit the conversation about it) because it seems that you don't know how to judge it. But by all means, open a new topic for it if you like.

And thanks for the feedback !
Peter

Ok, we technicians say "cause and effect"
SFS influences the memory load.

But the PC/OS is reacting differently with engaging the button "Max the same as SFS" under the item A and B

Joachim

:swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon::swoon:
(I held the ctrl-v button fow a while to be sure it should be clear that we stop this subject).

... This is because the SFS is different.
:smirk:
Peter

This is what I hear too ("sfs" is important NOT "max sfs").

Regards, Coen

I learned the interrelation SFS/memory again. (I'm getting older)
But to be precise (hair-splitting) in physical terms we hear datas from memory. (see graphs in the Task Manager)

Next.

I do hear the 3D soundstage with my settings in Attended mode only.

With the Unattended mode the accentuated left/right separation etc. is there again.

Joachim

I just had an incredible soundstage shrinking experience after rebooting into an "optimal" time performance index. Like being thrown back from the front to the backseat.

I have to get used to this sound. Most of you play with the optimal setting right? Whats your take on what happens?

Regards, Coen

Coen,

Just to be sure ... this was meant as a negative, right ?

When your setting is not "Optimal", what is it then (Poor or Not the Best) ?

Peter

The answer may not be needed. Anyway, my "other" setting is "Not the Best". And you know what ? I had reasons to right away trust this (from Coen). Or let's say I was interested. So I tried.

Well ...

Watch out : my settings here (and coming-up version) are so much different that comparison is hard, but let's say that I "use" 2x (no 3x) more accuracy here. And when *that* is taken into account ...

I think I never could decide for a certain setting so fast.
Uhm, "Not the Best" (for Time Performance Index) that is. It is not only completely pure but also incurs for a way outside of the speakers sound. At least that was the first that occurred to me.

Life is tough. This wasn't before. But with  0.9z-8-2 it should be so. I don't even dare to try W8 now. So never mind that.

But start to be afraid of 0.9z-8-3 because differences start to be enormous with everything.

Coen, no throwing from front seat to back seat here (imaging is OK in both cases (uhm ?), but let me thank you ...

Peter

Check!

Well it seems like the instruments are concentrated to 1/4 of their original size (in attended playing btw). Their relative places remain the same. Like the old LP (big) vs CD (small) effect. At further listening I think it sounds also a bit disorganised, can't follow all notes of the insturments.

Listening now to TPI "Not the best" and I can understand the music again!

regards, Coen

Will it be possible in the future to have a TPI setting say . . . In between optimal and not the best ? ( this out of curiosity )  ¤

:no:

"Only slightly sub-optimal"?  "Not the best, but not half bad"?

by the way such a ' poor ' comment . Not playing the ' ignorance is kind ' part here . Regards

Nah Stefano, I regard this as "not the best" is just not the best at all while some (like me) now say that this is the best. But mind you, this "not the best" is about not the best frequency. It says nothing about SQ (and so does the ToolTip I hope :)).

Btw, did you try it ?

Regards,
Peter

hi Peter . Yes i did try it . That is why i asked if there would be a fourth frequency to set . My findings are like yours about it . Not the best equals the best in w 7 . For w 8 different story . And of course it is all about sound quality :-)

Thank you for the feedback Stefano :yes:

Peter