XXHighEnd

All,

I think that by now I have sufficient experience with the new Q5 parameter to be able to tell what sounds how, and what should and should not be. Below pictures were not made up on the spot, but always floated in my mind during listening.

First my flavour : This is the first picture you see below. It is "Cotton".

Notice the properties of cotton, amongst which is a kind of roughness (say microscopic small hooks in the fibres) and they virtually filter the sound for its highest dynamic transients which do not sound digital per se, but which make the sound too hard. With the cotton sound the transients receive an underlaying sort of fundamental, which creates the necessary envelope of the transient and which makes it go smooth, while the transient sure is still there. No diminishing of detail.

Then there is silk, seen in the second picture below;
Silk is regarded one of the most soft materials, and silky-smooth really can be applicable to our music.
This is not really what I want because too much detail is lost. The slik as you see it in the picture is a dampening material. It will let through air, but not too much, esepecialy not when the air is pressured through it (things will merely burst first).

At the other opposite of the spectrum we have steel wool, and you see it in the last picture;
It lets through all air, will hardly filter anything, and because the metarial *is* steel, the sound will receive a steel flavour because of this type of filter.
This is what we can like, but it won't be applicable to all types of music. It is too hard and direct, and although containing all the detail there is, it can easily be fatigueing.

Steel Wool is achieved with a Clock Resolution of 0.5 and a Q5 of 3.

Cotton is achieved with a Clock Resolution of 0.5 and a Q5 of 5.

Silk can be achieved with a Clock Resolution of 0.5 and a Q5 of 3 just the same as Steel Wool can come from this setting, but it depends on the time of day, the moon, the washing machines and the mood of the PC or OS. Q5=3 does not show consistent behavior.

Aha.

So, besides I apparently like Cotton for a filter, after more than 3 weeks it is my finding that the sound stays consistent. And were we not seeking for that !
It can be a coincidence, but I never have been so long as satisfied each day without scratching the back of my head wondering what *now* happened because of sh*t sound; it just never happens with Q5=5 (Clockres aleays 0.5).

Two days ago I decided to have a more snappy sound somewhere, tried Q5=3 again, and right away could observe that this is not it (anymore). It is too transient and audibly too close to going wrong.
After that I tried Q5=4 and noticed a kind of special sound from it which I could not describe well. It had something, but also added something of which I thought it would be fake. Not sure. But the next day I started out with Q5=4 and within the track I swiched back to Q5=5 because I did not like it.

Because of this experience, I think that Q5 should be 5;
I think I heard others talk about this and that the 5 setting made things more dull, but while far down there will be truth in that, it has to be the other way around, and Q5=3 is too close to limits, and when your wife decides to wash your sweatshirt, it is over the limit.

I think that the least people should do is try Q5=5, and then those people who are suffering the change of SQ each other day.

Good luck,
Peter

Peter,

Ok... But can you also mention the extremes ? Like "0" and (I don't recall the maximum, I never tried) ?

Alain

Alain,

This took me weeks. So no I can't. And I guess as long as I am satisfied I won't either.

But now you mention it, "0" will just shut off the feature. "1" is special because it hogs so much everything that it will hog itself.
Maximum is 30 but that value will render the lot as "doesn't do a thing".

Anyway I hope that others jump in with their own ideas about this. My posting was actually only to show that the inconsistent SQ behavior can go out of the way.

Best regards,
Peter

Its cotton wool for me but no time at the moment to "play" with setting so I will take your word for it until I get time to play with it further.

P

Having listened to the "Cotton Wool" settings for a couple of hours now I do like the sound which is noticeably smoother and relaxed.

Paul

Hi, Peter
for me Q5=5 from now too.
I love analogies, they are a fantastic way to explain and to understand concepts. And yours were very nice. So "cotton wool"

Happy summer to everybody. :holiday:

Maxi

Yes, Q5=5 seems smoother than Q5=3 but just a few observations:

- The bass, mostly the upper bass, seems to have less definition than with Q5=3

- The voices are a little backward with respect to Q5=3

- The soundstage is wider, I´d say super wide, in a way that sometimes reminds me of when it is out of phase

As a general observation there is a slightly different placement of sounds, and I wonder if that is what produce the sense of smoothness.

Best regards,
Juan

I´ve changed some connections and the differences between Q5=5 and Q5=3 are minor although perceptible. Yes, Q5=5 is smother and the soundstage seems bigger but the sounds are correctly located now, the bass is similarly defined. Great sound with Q5=5.

Best regards,
Juan

Hi Juan,


Assuming there is real merit in this, what were your changes ?

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter, I expected the question, with this hot weather we have here I just want to lie down and drink iced tea ... hahaha
Okay,
I use a power conditioner but I used to have just plugged in the external hard drives and not the Music PC. This conditioner has two large transformers (among other things) these two transformers are independent from each other so I can connect two devices in an isolated way (almost). Now I connected the computer to one of the outlets of the power conditioner and the hard drives to another (in fact there are one pair of outlets per transformer). I use only two external drives at the same time (no internal disks), one SSD with OS/XXHE eSata connected, and one hard drive with music connected with USB 3.0. On the other hand I use ramdisk configured in a special way (thanks to the genius of Alain) with two virtual disks A and B, one with XXHE/XXData and another as Playback Drive. Now, once the Playback Drive is charged with the music just a few seconds after I hit play, I disconnect the hard drive with Music, and also physically turn off the screen, disconnect the keyboard and mouse and only keep connected the eSata SSD. This way the Music PC has only connected the SSD eSata and the NOS1, remember that XXHE/XXData are also in the ramdisk which probably contributes to a better sound. Now the sound is clean and very musical and the differences, although perceptible, between Q5=5 and Q5=3 are less notorious.

By the way, I'm building, well not me but a technician friend of mine, a linear power supply for external drives, it sure will help to improve the sound, with the configuration I explained I´d only need one of those power supplies for the SSD. I´ll let you know when I get it ready and see if the sound is even better than now.

Best regards,
Juan

Ah Juan, great thanks for that explanation, and that subjective to the heat we suffer from here as well. :heat:

But funny ... Virtually I use the same approach as yours. The only difference is that I have this "official" through XXHighEnd;
What's left in my case is one SPINNING disk only, which sounds better than no disk at all (don't ask me why because I don't know yet). I will explain more about the setup later, when the new XXHighEnd version is due.

Best regards,
Peter

The Velociraptor with another OS/XXHE is still inside the case but disconnected, now I´m experimenting with the eSata SSD, the advantage could be that the SSD don´t take the power fom the computer power supply, so less work for the ps. But as I say, the Velociraptor is still there waiting for another test in some more time. And another different test will be also with the Velociraptor outside the case in place of the SSD.

Best regards,
Juan