XXHighEnd

Since I have started using SFS at 4 (as per Peter's), it feels like a drug now :o
The bass has a presence it never really had before. It is as if when you select "4", a new engine is started. And I like it !!!!

Correction: it's like staring at an image of a countryside on TV as opposed to being in the countryside itself.

Alain

I see you have connected the subwoofers again, haha!. Would you say that this great bass is in Windows 8.1 even stronger than in W8?

Juan

Hi Juan,

Not really, since I still am not using W8.1. Instead of installing 8.1 on my music PC, I preferred to encounter the different changes with my laptop, even if I don't use it often. I already have discovered a few things, but SQ wise, I am still in a very early stage. And since using unattended at this point is a challenge, I prefer to take my time.

I would like to say "All works !", but our friends at MS have a different angle at things than us... It's like when the highway workers decide to repair a road. We all spend against our will (our running engines wastes gas while we are stuck in traffic)...

Regards,

Alain

Following Peters advice, I have adopted all his settings, with success.

First of all my PC works much better with the lower SFS. It's faster in operation and doesn't run out of memory anymore.

But second - and more important - Oh, that authority in the bass is sooo addictive!

But first let me explain my set-up: It is 3-way active, so there is constantly the itch/temptation to adjust, readjust and readjust again. This, in combination with me inching the loudspeakers and sofa a few centimetres back or forward, it makes for a never ending tweaking route. (Sounds familiar to you, I guess?). Throw into the mix some new interconnects, loudspeakers grills on/off and you get an infinite numbers of variables.  :wacko:   

But (there is always a "but") with the new SFS4 settings, it made it much easier to dial in the best combinations of the above parameters. After a couple of years with hit and miss, now I rather easily dialled in the optimal settings.

Here is what I have done recently:
First I reduced both the treble (>800Hz) and bass (<80Hz) 1 dB, giving a more natural overall tonal balance. Never too boomy in the bass, never too "hot" treble. -Great tolerance against the big variations in mastering of my favourite music.

After getting the tonal balance right, I moved the tweeter towers 15 mm backwards. Voila! my soundstage  clicked in, with greater depth and more believable 3D soundscape.

Then I decided to keep the grills of midrange tower in place, while removing the grills covering the ribbon tweeter. This gave a slightly brighter/less dark tonal balance, probably half a dB, (which I cannot achieve electronically since my active XO works in steps of 1 dB).

Finally I moved my sofa 40cm further into the room, towards the loudspeakers.

And here I am sitting right now, with absolutely the best SQ I ever had. And it took me a fairly short time to tweak it all. I guess there is a "rightness" to SFS4 which made it easier to hear and decide the tweaks which followed.

Just listened through Joni Mitchell/Don Juan Reckless Daughter (HDtracks 192/24). Jaco's bass shakes the room like thunder, and the acoustic guitar is still slightly hot in the treble, but still it is tonally balanced and very listenable, even at high levels.

Now playing is Aretha Franklin/Amazing Grace (HDtracks 192/24). This recording is slight on the dark side, but the "thereness" is so great, that you don't mind the slightly dullness. The microphones recorded enough acoustic information to bring the album alive. (Favourite track: Wholly Holy).

Something else: I can play louder than ever, BUT it also sounds very good on low ("normal") levels.

Great work, Peter!  :clapping:

Hi guys,

I'm not feeling the SFS=4 love unfortunately.  In my setup changing completely to Peters settings makes the bass a bit woolly and affects clarity in the upper mids. Soundstaging is also negatively affected.

From what I can tell my settings differ from Peters as follows:

• my SFS=20 and max SFS = 20
• my clock resolution is 0.5ms
• my Processor Core Appointment Scheme is #4

Of course the difference could be just about anything in the audio system, but I wonder if my Xeon processor and PPAstudio card are affecting these things?

Cheers,

Anthony

Hey,

I think I have success with Q5=3 @ClockRes=0.5 (this is not so in my sig at this moment).
But since you don't mention it (while it is crucial for W8), what is your Q5 Anthony ?

Peter

I have also raised my Max SFS to 220 again with the idea of longer term stability (read : not needing a reboot each day).

Hi Peter,

My Q5 is 5 as it says in my signature.

Cheers,

Anthony

Sorry, I just noticed Max SFS is at 360.
FWIW.

For me still the best settings are SFS 4 (Max 4) with clock at 1ms and Q5=5. The new settings from Peter SFS 120 (Max 360) 0.5ms sounds here with a too big and booming bass. The Anthony (acg) settings sound very similar to mine (which are Peter´s previous ones) but contrarily to Anthony the bass seems tighter and with some more presence, not big differences however, as I say.

Peter, when you say that you use SFS max at 360 to avoid restart the PC does it means that you have ON the PC all the time?.

Juan

Hi Juan,

My SFS is NOT 120 ! It  is 4.
You must have derived that 120 from the "PSU" topic where I use that 120 for easier testing the usage of the PC.

I have all my PC's on all the time. Audio PC too.

Regards,
Peter

Just thought I would report that these settings also work with W7. I currently use Leonard Cohen's latest album Old Ideas second track Amen to do comparisons.

Changing from SFS 120 Max 120 to SFS 4 Max 20 was an immediate improvement. I did change the clock to 1ms but today have gone back to .5ms. I did not change the Q settings.

I find both the voice and bass on Amen to be more natural.


I havn't had the reboot problem with W7. I have left the max at 20.

Can you explain the reason and effect max SFS has?

You are right Peter, I was wrong with your settings. With SFS 4 (Max 120), 0.5ms and Q5:3 the music I listened so far seems simply different, a big change, the bass is much more tight and the sound seems a little on the dry side compared to your previous settings (mine now), I´d say that it is more in face but with an impressive and realistic presence. It deserves a more careful audition.

Best regards,
Juan

Robert,


To my belief it keeps the remainder of Windows processes and all in a less scattered environment (in memory, which is less now for Windows). This would mean that Windows itself has less pain in performing its tasks which next infuences our sound.

Regards,
Peter

I don't see the controversy or newness with SFS=4, Q1=1, Q1x=1.  When the craze was SFS=2, I remember that some tried 4 and higher up to about 12 because these higher numbers gave smoother sound.  Q1=1 was also common in those days and Q1x did not exist.

I used SFS=4 for a long time. 

If this helps, when I first assembled my xxHighEnd PC, I started with SFS=120.  But I was forced out of 120 for some reason that I can't remember right now but I then settled with SFS=4.  Mind you, this was with a Wyred 4 Sound DAC2, for which I had a bufferSize of 2048.  SFS=4 worked well with the default DAC2 settings.   Eventually I migrated to SFS=6.  6 was better in every way. 
Then I changed the DAC2 settings to open it, softening the brick wall filter by setting it to "PCM Rolloff = Slow."  This allows the DAC2 to product square waves with little if any ringing.   With the DAC2 open like this, my SFS is now 60.  [editorial:  1) my signature stats needs to be updated at the time of this writing. 2) All of this is Win7.]

But back to SFS=4, I ran SFS=4 for a long time and never noticed any change in the bass.  Same for SFS=6.  My speakers are dead flat down to 40 Hz, and -6db at 20.

Hey Charlie,

Thanks a lot for your fine and detailed elaboration on this. I think it is useful (for at least me).

I think I can add one rather crucial data point for you : this (topic) was all explicitly about Windows 8, where at some stage there was a kind of consensus that the SFS did not matter much anymore and many started using 120 (maybe because I did and at that same time we went down from the real large numbers like 370 or more). So, there has been a gap for everyone in the low-SFS areas, nobody (for W8 !) using the low numbers anymore. Until I tried that SFS=4 and found it a revelation - mind you, for the XXHE version at present.

Wasn't it you who was the last one going from Vista to W7 ? maybe. But anyway, I think it is time to go to W8 (not W8.1) because your whole world will be different. Especially with the latest findings which are related to Q5 (hardly useful in W7).

Best regards,
Peter

Wow! That much better?
This is hard to believe but i believe you.

I just upgraded to win 7...  But will of course this will be my next move.

My bass is already great, so this makes me really wonder how it can be with win 8.  (also this is the first positive i hear about win 8.  )

You're right, q5 did almost nothing on win 7.

Thanks

Nah, c'mon ...
I think there is nobody in here who wants to revert to W7 after getting his stuff together for W8, which succeeds for everybody who had the fainted heart to try. It is only true that getting W8 right is not so easy at all, but this is how Q5=1 today helps so much.

W8 is ultimately better and I am really not the only one saying it (just follow the postings). But take your time for it.

BTW, the SFS=4 thing is not the easiest for digging out that bass generally; I think it has been written in this topic that it doesn't work for everybody and that much depends on the bass output (quality of) of the speaker in the first place. Also, not that many people responded to this so this is always dangerous (and don't take anything for a fact only because it is my own judgement). I'd say it is more valuable that someone like you, from a completely different direction/angle ever back came to the same.

Regards,
Peter

Sorry.  I meant as an OS in general.  In general, consumers of PC's don't like Win8.  Win8 is not a "where do you want to go today" OS,  it is a "where Microsoft wants you to go" OS.

My comment was not directed at an OS for music playback.  I tried putting it in parenthesis, but I really should have not made the comment.   However, my mistake provides an important point, namely your comment that no one who has tried it has turned back.   That's valuable info.

Everybody using XXHighEnd only sees W7 Charlie. It is W8 but looks (and operates !) like W7.