XXHighEnd

I currently run 5g in both ramdisk files as recommended by Peter in order to playback some 24/96 and 24/192 music files.

Juan runs this setup:


Is 1G enough space for XXhighend ram(A), in order to playback 24/96 and 24/192 files? Any problems Juan.

Does this make a difference to sound quality?

Robert

If I may ...

Robert, no, that won't work well. Best is to regard both to be about equal. Only if you do that, you can be sure that you don't need to pay attention to the format of the file and whether it is copied anyway and more of that (you all don't want to know about).

Or IOW, when you minimalise one of them to 1GB, you can look at this as if both were 1GB (the remainder is unused hence wasted).

Regards,
Peter


PS: But maybe Juan has good reasons for this.

Hi Peter,

As we know, there are 2 ramdrives created when we use that principle:
- XXHighEnd (the entire XXHighEnd folder) on drive A:\
- Playback drive on drive B:\

I am not sure what the XXHighEnd ramdrive (A:\) requires to work properly.

So, for these different scenarios, is it possible to know when extra space is required:
a) For WAV files only ?
b) For FLAC files ?
c) Other formats ?

This will help to understand better most of the requirements. Since the beginning I was under the impression that the XXHighEnd folder was not required to be as big as the Playback drive ?

My allocated space for each ramdrive is about the same as Juan...

Regards,

Alain

Hi Alain,

I am sorry, but if I say "you don't want to know" then you don't. However, if you do, you must understand ALL. And I can't go and explain all. Really not. The number of combinations is dozens.

The basics are in here, but I sure you know them :

Installing and using a RAMDisk (IMDisk) (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2915.0).

MY POINT IS : If people don't comply to this, you will get unrecognizable errors, while you yourself are not able to explain what you did and what the cause is.


Same size as reserved for the (in-RAM) Playback Drive with theoretically a little bit more to store the bare XX folder's contents.

Regards,
Peter

Using a RAMDisk (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2695.0).

This is actually the link I wanted pass on.
In there you have elementary examples.

Peter

Hi Robert, I'm out of home until the next week and I can't test if I find some problem with 24/96 and 24/192 files. I'm using a ramdisk created by Alain and I have had usually around 8Gb shared with different sizes in between the A/B disks, eg  4/4, 2/4 or 1/6 like I have now. As Alain says I always thought that the B ramdisk should be bigger than the A ramdisk. With the present configuration I charged more than 2Gb of WAV files, I mean 4 or 5 cds or even more without problem.
Now I can't remember when I played 24 /96 or 24/192 files but as soon as I return home I'll do it and let you know. Anyway, if Peter says that both ramdisk have in fact the size of the little one (if I understood Peter well) he is probably right, although it doesn't seem to be my own experience.

Regards,
Juan

Hi Robert,

I´ve been testing the size of the ramdisks playing 24/96 and 24/192 files. With a 2Gb (A) ramdisk (xxdata and xxhighend 2.02) and a 6Gb (B) ramdisk (playback) playing a 4.53Gb album (wav 24/192) there was no problem at all. So it seems that there is no need the (A) ramdisk has enough space for the album, while the (B) ramdisk has enough space for it.

If the different sizes for the ramdisks make a difference to SQ, I have not noticed.

Best regards,
Juan

Try FLAC ...
(for example)

Peter, the idea was to test whether the storage capacity in the ramdisks is determined by the smaller one, as you said.

Regards,
Juan

Juan, it is.

And if you refuse to believe *and* test it for the general purpose, then I would be happy if no misinformation is spread.

Thank you !

Regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter, I'm sure you're right, so I will not continue with this topic.

Regards,
Juan

It is so super easy, once you know all the ins and outs :

Once again, it is one example only, but if it is FLAC, then this goes to the XX folder first (uncompressed, as WAV now - UNICODE000x.wav files). When you also have denoted a Playback Drive, then it *also* goes to that location (so now it is in both the XX folder and the Playback Drive).
This (obviously ?) means that the XX Drive will need to be a little larger than the Playback Drive, namely per the size of the XXHighEnd program files and stuff.

This does not count for .WAV because that does not need to go to the XX folder first (but see more below). So now the XX folder remains empty (no UNICODE000x.wav files in there).
This is what you tested, "coincidentally" and thus it can not be a general rule or advice. Also, most people will have FLAC, already because of the huge sizes for Hires.

And before you ask ... the reason why FLAC goes that route, is to eliminate the difference people might perceive between WAV and FLAC. In the end this is all about the Playback Drive and how it operates AND what it's purpose was (FLAC/WAV difference).
IOW, no, the extra space FLAC needs can not be avoided (well, I just don't want to avoid it, to be honest).

The other way around can be mimicked though, set Always Copy To XXDrive to active and now WAV also will go that same route (goes to the XX folder as well).

Lastly, but I am repeating myself, there are countless more combinations and they are out of your control and knowledge (hey, even mine). So for example, when the WAV is also HDCD (will not be Hires, although theoretically it can), then the WAV also travels the "FLAC route". *Whether* this happens you don't even know (at least not really in advance).

All 'n all there is one safe way only : Have the XX drive at least as large as the Playback Drive.

Peter


PS: Careful how you are going to respond now, because it will be your 1000th.  :) :)

Understood! Peter thanks.


Yeah!!  :NY01:

Juan