XXHighEnd

Nah ... it won't be personal ... if we only have consensus what to listen for.
And "verdict" ? ... what about finalizing this super sh*t and have some fun in life instead of installing Operating Systems.
So I don't know about you, but I am done with it.

Does that sound negative ?
No man ... but at some stage we must recognize that a search for better is not an efficient way of living. That is, if the better has already been found, why continue. Because it may get more better ?
I should have listened to myself last May.

---

:)

---

So here goes :

Suppose one would like to observe the capabilities of Windows 10 and then specifically Build 10586.0. Notice though that 10565 won't be much different. What you do is this :

Get hold of Blade Runner Trilogy ( http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Trilogy-25th-Anniversary/dp/B000Z0OX9O ) and pull out CD2 and play Track 03 - Dr. Tyrell's Owl.
If you have a playback system which is a bit like mine, your jaw will drop to the floor as in "is THIS possible ?!??".
IOW, you will hear bells which are so super clear and so crazily loud that at least I myself say that only real bells can do this. It is amazing and possibly the most amazing I ever perceived from music playback.
Btw my tweeters can digest 450W or so, and maybe this helps.

Ok, you have the album and are not even going to try. That is fine. Still you should though, as it is the best track to see through what's all being done to us by an Operating System.

You won't be happy for 30 seconds ...
So a little bit into the track the super clean bells turn into more complex sounds and when it is as loud as we play over here, it soon starts to hurt. The all so interesting bell sounds turn into something which we can literally call shattering; shattering as shattering is meant to be.
Now THAT is your beautiful Windows 10 Operating System.
No wait, that is all beyond Build 10074.

Let's go back a little;
What did I just say ? ... "if it is as loud as we play over here".
And this is the whole issue ... I wasn't playing loud or louder as usual; instead the balance is so way way way off that things like these bells perceive an emphasis which is out of this world.
I told you : cymbals which lasted longer as ever (10565 that was). But I also told you : commercial music shows a distortion - not normal. Lastly I also told you that it must be my system now which is not good enough.
:nea:

So I changed that system;
(later and elsewhere more about that)

The possible mistake I made is that after this enormously impacting change, I started out with Windows 8. I forgot a bit, but this was 2.5 - 3 weeks or so ago.
Windows 8 wasn't Windows 8 any more and because of that I kept it like that. It is also the reason why Windows 8 will be on the OS-from-RAM disk. Windows 8 ain't that bad at all. But it requires adjustments "elsewhere".

Btw you need to know me a little, because I like to preserve my birthday present for later opening. All this time I can look forward to it.
And so I think it was last Friday that I finally rebooted into 10565 again from the same disk as the W8, because I planned to get 10586 going in the days to come, and obviously I had to know how 10565 now sounds.
Was I dissappointed !

Instead that my new hardware improved 10565 - which I for 100% sure expected - it made something of it that people described from 10586.3 and beyond or whatever (I did not read it from 10586.0 but we "found" that one only two days ago (story is more complicated)).

My next hope was that my system now is so good that it showed better how bad 10565 is.
:swoon:
Always hoping ... haha
So now I was hoping for 10586.0.

I got that running yesterday afternoon - again from RAM.
And now something odd happened - never experienced before;
Already at the first track - just from my Demo Gallery - I soon started to think "can't this finish sooner ?". Well, it just slipped through my mind at that moment.
At the second track I started to explicitly think (and be annoyed) that a third track would follow from this same album, but anyway I waited it out because something was strange really and I was sort of intrigued.
At that third track I was sure : there was no variation to be found anywhere in the ~ 8 minute long tracks. And then 8 minutes is fairly long ...

I played with that situation for 3 hours and nothing changed;
Whatever I played (all my usual stuff) I could recognize all the sounds in there (maybe even more) but very explicitly there was no variation in it anywhere. As if only the bass lines were present and nothing else. 8 minutes of the same bass lines. No.
If you sit that out for 3 hours then you are ready for mental hospital, I can tell you.

On a side note and before I forget :
My main problem with these W10 versions is a kind of lack of dynamics. Stuffed ears feeling. And yes, go figure what actually is lacking, knowing that the highs are only way loud ...

It was 9pm and dinner started to be about ready. It is there where I put up the Blade Runner track, because I played it the day before (10565) and was thrown a "this hurts !". So what about 10586.0 then ?
I started out positively : Listen closely because you never heard anything like it ! (knowing that the issue happens only somewhat later).

True.
But as already unveiled : it lasts no 30 seconds. Even I was surprised. The shattering is more than 10565.

My now audiophile partner started to talk about a balance issue. Well, she must be gifted because of what happened next. Anyway I could only agree, but not really make it up myself in advance. Agree yes. This is how nobody should do this alone ...

So I said "yes; so let's postpone dinner for 90 minutes and experiment a little". I'll put in W8 and then you'll see about your balance; I think you are correct.".

Then I thought that possibly this was not fruitful for anything, because I just listened to W8 for 2.5 - 3 weeks. So could be nice for some confirmation, but what about ... 10074.
At least it was from that one that I recall no anomalies other than "too grey, but W8 is too much of a robot anyway so let's stick to that". ... Which of course I did not because it would expire (which it does not, as we now know) and we searched for something which was there to stay.

Hey, did you try that Blade Runner track already ?
You should. Because :

With 10074 the first remark I received was that I put up the wrong track.
"No my dear".
But you did !
"No ...".

Did I already tell you to listen to that track ?
You should because if you do that one time only, you will get the merit of the paragraph above. It seems impossible with only a few stupid bells sounding. Bells are bells and you'll sure recognize that when played 10 minutes later again with another OS.

So you won't.

Think balance.
There are bells all right, but they are part of something else. What did I say ? PART of something else. Let's call that music, although this particular track is more about sounds in space or whatever.
But bells ?
What bells.
I actually mean something like : Bells of 100dBSPL ? those bells should be 70dBSPL. Only a small difference. :smirk:

With 10074, right away you feel that you put up music instead of sounds.
Right away you now know what balance can mean for being destructive or the opposite. Oh, we knew ... but it is a bit tough to dig that out of the behavior of an Operating System. Crazy stuff.

More on some side notes, but actually as crucial :

When you use W10 - unlike W8 - you are going to play with the SFS. Somehow this is necessary or otherwise you can't find your sound at all. What I did with the above comparison was letting 10074 be as it was from the last time I used it (months ago by now). This implied an SFS of 0.09.
All good.
Do notice that now you must also play Track 05 - Leo's Room, from that same CD. This is space sound and how bass behaves.

Then I turned the SFS to 0.40 - the same as 10586.0 was using. ... All DEAD. Nothing, nada. No space so also no space sound.

Or what happened way earlier, when I started to use 10586.0 :
SFS was at 2.00. Stuffed ears all over. Totally flat far way sound. What to do. Make lower.
0.2 is too low and behavior is the same as with 10565. Then 0.4. Ah, room full with sound. Good.
But not.

Now the important message :
10074 easily *can* be that low. 10240 could not (just does not play), 10565 can not (same) and 10586.0 - honestly I did not try because 0.2 already sounds bad.
All I want to say is that the SFS is completely crucial to begin with and that it can be so that 10074 sounds so good over here because I can get the SFS as low as "she likes it". This, while 10074 at 0.40 (same as I used 10586.0) sounds like "nothing" (which is always different from shattering - just saying).

---

So for me it will be 10074 and Ground Hog Day will be Sept. 2 for ever. Unless someone else comes up with something better with some general consensus; then I will happily try that too. But for now ? for now I have been installing enough for a while.

Happy listening !
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for this personal verdict, it makes me less bothered to tell about some negative things I experienced over here.
After being away from xxhe for some time because of pc-problems I finally got to installing Win 10 (565) on my htpc and the new 2.03 version.
The first song I played, Hello from Adele, (to keep the WAF up) started to sound good, but when she raises her voice it becomes unbearable. As if she has a chainsaw in stead of the worlds best female voice...
Using a headphone to check if it was my new tubes made it worse.
Then going to windows media player I could listen to the song again and even enjoy it!
So are you sure there's no bugs been creeping in?
It sounds to me like more than 1% distortion in the presence region, maybe crossover?
Hope this helps and you can solve it!

Good luck  ;),

Gerard(A).

Thank you for that Gerard.

Unconsciously you say it sort of the same as I do :
The player matters a lot; it is my story about the SFS, which is only a matter of (many) buffers, which always matter.
Of course Windows Media Player uses "a" setting of that as well - it is only that one can not change that.

If I set the SFS higher then the nastyness is not much there, but many other things then lack - like depth and dynamics.
Of course it is just what one is used to (plus I use a crazy DAC).

Coincidentally I have a few examples of the worst women voices and Adele is one of them (if not ahead of all). The worst for playback, I mean.
Even more coincidentally, only recently I could play her for the first time - it was with Windows 10, Build 10074. No kidding.
Maybe that is why I mentioned her in the Tidal Tutorials, using her in some examples.

Do yourself a favor, and try 10074. You can find it in here : Getting Specific W10 Builds (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3391.0).

Regards and thanks !
Peter

Hey Peter,

And this 2 september thing can be auto set with xx?

Gerard, yes, I will make something for it (this is not even easy because of the different formats people (PC's) use).

I then must also make a new mechanism for storing the PresetLoader files because as how it is now, only one backup file of that will emerge per date (in \XXData), which is thus one only (if the date is kept to Sept. 2).

Peter

Hi Peter, does this mean that the hard drive clones you anticipate providing for us will use W10-1074?

Brian, but of course !
And I planned that all along (that is why my sentence in the topic concerned sneaked in the "or more" (OSes)).

Peter

I agree with you 10074 is the best and I'm resigned to reset the date which isn't a major. Perhaps you would be better to find the date turnoff software switch and turn it back on in 10074!!!!

Will xxhighend 2.03 work better with 10074, or should one stay with 2.02?

Robert

Hi Peter & everyone trying 10586

In minOS mode I agree sound quality is not great with 2.03/10586. But a tip from another user may well change your opinion. Just go back to normal OS and change to Q5=2 (if you were previously Q5=1). Seems a silly idea I know but works wonders for me, the music is back!.

Colin

Hi Peter,

Yep, I concur...SFS with W10074 matters a lot...more than ever that I can remember, but the sound you can get is so dynamic and clean and real.  I am trying to find my sweet spot between 0.05 and 0.12 SFS.

My wife (definitely a non-audiophile and lover of quiet) came into my office this afternoon and sat through the entire Abdullah Ibrahim "Senzo" at about 90dB average SPL (loud like we were sitting right at the piano in real life) and just listened without saying a word...she was even still happy when the album finished.  This is quite unusual behaviour for her so W10074 must be doing something right.

Seriously though, I have not played with the other W10's, and I am usually quite sensitive to balance when I hear it so I am just fine with staying at W10074 and going no further.  It is definitely ahead of W8 at the moment, although I will still install XX2.03 there just to see if it can wring any more performance from the old o/s.

Cheers,

Anthony

I have done both Robert, and prefer XX2.03.  It is worth half an hour to install it and get it up to speed...plus you get Tidal which I will try soon.

Cheers,

Anthony

Hi Robert,

Not disregarding Anthony's response, technically 2.02 works for 10074. However, it could be good to be on par with the partially unknown future because ... well, it is just so. :)

2.03 can sound better as well because of minor (explicit) changes in that realm (I never announced it because I don't know whether it really does something - too much hoopla with the other stuff).

Peter

Hi,

from my experience amplification (power amp) has a major impact.

Joachim

Joachim,

You can't even guess how close you are with that remark.

Sorry to be vague. I like games.
Peter

Thanks Peter, can't wait to hear it! Though I downloaded the original 1074 ISO I never got around to installing it. Honestly, since about the middle of July my system has sounded so good--I think the NOS1a finally "broke in" after all the changes- I've been unable to imagine it sounding better. But now, I am so looking forward to unplugging the hard drive!

Phew that is a relief as by a clear margin 10074 is the best that I have heard here on my system (having heard the others).

Paul

I just tried the 10586.0 in Normal OS, with Q5=2, Unattended, and it is the best digital music I ever heard.

See below for the file I payed. :whistle:

Haha, joki is among us  :prankster:

Hans

I don't post much here but I am compelled and must totally agree with Peter and Gerard about poor recording quality on Adele's albums.

It is really sad about the recording quality and techniques used in mastering Adele's albums. Totally compressed with no dynamic range. Totally muddy sound and I was unable to listen to more than 2 songs before moving on.

I was hoping for better with 25, but the sound is absolutely dismal and pretty much unlistenable except on a cheap radio or MP3(perhaps the engineer's market of choice).

Also makes me wonder if the artist is so removed from the process she does not know how poor it sounds on a system with good resolution.

Even the NOS1a is not going to make up for a poor recording, or at least I will never take the time to adjust settings to try improve what should have taken place in the studio.

I do enjoy Adele's voice but for now I can only recommend her Live at the Royal Alpert Hall. That is actually pretty decent.

Agree, in fact she is not alone quite a number of musicians have no or only an ipod for playback. Playing an instrument or singing is their hobby not playback equipment. I could also add sound engineers both live and studio.

When some hear my system they are staggered that you can in fact get some resemblance of the sound they make that is quite reasonable to listen to.

I know a Cello player who has been in the local orchestra for 20 years and still does not own a stereo. She prefers the real sound she is immersed in and doesn't bother to replicate it in the home. Still with the fact you have the real sound as a reference point you would think the muscian would be consulted as to the recording quality.

I guess Adele is at the whim of the recording company who determine the sound versus max sales return.

Robert

My cousin is a professional musician but not a wealthy one so he is also the recording engineer for the CD's he has made of his group (with himself singing and performing).

He listened to his CD on my system and was astonished at one point to hear himself "slurp" into the microphone. He thought he had edited out all the nasties but had not heard that one before.

Paul

I tried Q5 = 2 but won't comment! ;)
Everybody should try for them selves...

Hi,

since the beginning with W10 (August) the setting of Q5 = 2 here, and the SQ is great :)
But, every system is different.

Joachim

Hi,

voices are the true/real challenge of a system, and Adele sounds not bad here. All voices on my system are a real pleasure. As I wrote before, amplification matters.

Joachim

True, Joachim.
But when suddenly our systems are going to make such a difference between us, something is not right in the base. In the end it is just Statistics you know, though dangerous a little. It happened with W7-RTM, W7-SP1 until I got it nailed again W8 for a year with piles of effort from everybody and now W10 when beyond 10074.

So you see, the problem is that those who like 10586(.0), like it for not-so-justified reasons. They never tried 10074 or they can't use 10074 in well fashion.

When is someone going to write something negative about 10074 ? I am waiting ...

Systems are different, Yes. But it should be clear (and should have occurred to us) that we as a group achieve consensus almost always, no matter that this seems impossible.

Meanwhile I can only encourage people to try 10586.0 (I have a download available - just send me an email). Not to waste your time, but to see whether 10586.0 *is* the better one. That too is a matter of statistics. The way to find out is a bit tough though.

Regards,
Peter

If I may ... about the Adele's of this world ...

It surely will depend on the "pressing", but I don't think the Adele's are very much compressed. Of course, about everything is compressed, but to say it is "extra" in this case, ... not that I can see.

I have two 19's; one is 3dB better than what I set as average and the other is 4.5dB better.
The 21 I have is 1.5dB worse than the average and I won't regard that super bad (6dB worse is, in my book).

I just played both albums for a couple of minutes and both sound fine (10074); just a woman (nicely) singing.
No way I could do that a year ago; shrill voice all over.
But exactly that is my challenge. And Krall is fine for several years already (also a challenge but apparently more easy).

Peter

PS: I just obtained Hello from Tidal (this is a single track "album") and it is 1.5dB worse for compression. At 1:00 I stopped the 4:55 track because I don't like to (cope with) goose bumps early in the morning. 8)

Hi,
correct, we all have different systems and personnel preferences ....... .

First another item, the sound in my room is "lightyears" away from the sound of  a live concert. (I was in a “rock performance” last Saturday)

At present I’m playing music with W10-10240  - I know =he, he, he - , XXH 2.02 on a RAM disc and an external MinOS program.  Listen to this SQ is a pleasure for many hours (without any fatigue) , even with higher SPLs. Voices and instruments are in acoustical size near to live impressions. (voices are a tad to big)

Started listening with 10586.0, XXH 2.03 in MinOs with my common records last night.

The sound hearing is from the listening position of the mastering engineer. More details, less timbre, very analytical, depth of the room image is very small. Voices and instruments are in acoustical size to small. After a couple of minutes I had to decrease the SPL to 65dB(A).
What I’m missing here is the acoustical size (reverberation)  of  the instruments and voices. This combination (OS + XXH) seems to be .......... .

Maybe I have to start the fight with the installation of 10074. My main problem is, that I shut down the PC every night.

Joachim

You see, you can describe exactly what I am perceiving from it. it is only that you are better with the wording or general description.
With your description as a base, I can do it too now (because now people will understand) :

It sounds too far away and completely flat.
It isn't doing anything.
All is detached from eachother (this will be the "no music" thing).
There's huge gaps in the frequency spectrum (hard to describe).
There's so much nothing that you don't know what you are doing in that room with sounds, to begin with.
Each individual sound is cold as stone (read : where is the wood = timbre etc.).
Music should be sucking in. This is blowing you away.

It is just literally nothing.

Thank you Joachim,
Peter

:offtopic: (?)

Joachim,

I would like to encourage you (and possibly you are not the only one) to re-try with your laptop and describe what happens; possibly it can be solved.
But what I really want to say is :

It is very well possible that 2.03 does not kill your laptop when going to MinOS. That is, I recall that this was the problem. Quite some things changed there, necessary for 10240 and beyond.

Please open a new topic for this; I am prepared to spend time on it.

Peter

:offtopic:


Hey You :)

Despite what I said about Adele, it is IMO true that artists (far most of them) don't care a hoot about music quality. It has been said sort of, but why would a musical artist be interested in high quality music ?
It is just not the same thing. Or maybe it is even challenged for :

When I'm this musical artist, I'm in this larger hall with my own amplification all right, but which by guarantee can't be anything good. Say it just does not exist (at least not out of the box). So as the artist I give up on that ?
No, I just don't even start it;

I have my guitar and with some friends I start a nice band and when the click is there it exists a year after still and maybe I produce an album.
Cheap-ish of course because I have no money for it.

My hobby at home is not even cooking because I am never there to cook because of the performances each night. Anyway I dont have nice speakers at home as well. It is not my hobby.
Playing the guitar is.

In the end I can not help it really that I went along with a singer of superp level and that my friend next door is able to write such good songs that every listener starts to complain that the SQ of the recording is so unnecessary poor and it is a waste.

And I ? I play the guitar and it is my joy for life.

---

Something like that.

Hi Peter,

MinOs works quite well. No. of process are down from >50 to 29.

Joachim

Joachim, I meant with 10074 ...

Very interesting but confusing. Is 586 ok or nok? Still need to install 10074?

Today I bought 25 in vinyl and that sounded like it should! I (we?) have to apologize to Adele, she really can sing and the recording quality is top of the bill!

After thanksgiving I'll see if I can make a digital copy with my new ADC-toy and compare with the other (downloaded) versions I've got. One version from vinyl on mp3 and one from cd on flac. With q5=2 they sound ok but my vinyl gives a bit more acoustical space. Let's see what will be the result... :)

Well Peter, I have tried 10586 via the download you have available and experimented for a while even trying Q5=2.  Once settled I have only compared two albums:  Daft Punk Homework and Dvoraks "A New World" Symphony #9 by Kubelik/Berlin Philharmonic and what can I say....


...I have no doubt that 10074 is where it is at.

OK Anthony, thank you for sharing.

Would you have more wording to describe what you think is wrong with 10586.0 ?

Btw notice that the Q5=2 is said to be used in Normal OS. This is outside of what Joachim is talking about. Instead this is 10586.0 specific.
It hasn't been told, but I assumed Q3 and Q4 to be at 1.

Regards,
Peter

I definitely hear what you are saying and really can't disagree. I guess where I am coming from is that listening and enjoying music is my hobby and not my vocation. Is it safe to say in the case of an artist is their chosen medium actually their vocation? Maybe or maybe not, but for me being a chef is both my vocation and in many ways my performance. After 45 years of performances I would have to say that some of them have been more memorable than others. I guess I can consider myself lucky that my less than stellar performances are not documented for posterity as with a recording artist.

Without a doubt my greatest preference is to experience a live performance with that direct emotional connection with the performer. That of course is opposed to being in the comfort of my own personal space trying to recreate that same emotional connection. One big difference (unfortunately) is I have many more opportunities to listen in the at home than live. It is my reality and I accept it.

So to make up for that inability to always experience live performances, I try to assemble an electronic reproduction system that gets me as close to the live event as possible.

And I have to say that many more times than not it works for me. There are some Adele's within the range of music I listen to but I would have to say they are in the minority. There are many more Rickie lee Jones, or Leonard Cohens, or Ferrons or Marc Cohns...recordings that usually do give me that emotional connection.

Perhaps one reason for this is I have had the opportunity to hear them perform live. I certainly acknowledge that must help me make the connection I am looking for. I have not had the opportunity to hear Adele live. If I did maybe I could relate better. In that respect for sure it is my issue and not hers. I guess my problem is that I do really enjoy Adele as an artist and performer and with her Live at Royal Alpert Hall album I could make that connection and it was most enjoyable. I miss that on her studio recordings for whatever reason.

So back to the reproduction system. I have what I believe is a damn good system. I have the NOS1a, Phasure Computer and XXhighend(a few versions behind, but I always seem to lag a little behind there :dntknw: ). What I consider to be good amplification (845 monoblocks or excellent solid state) I have a number of good speaker systems at my disposal as well. What I love about this system is when I am able to make that connection it is absolutely magic. For whatever reason this particular system seems to make it easier for me to experience that magic more frequently than others I have had before. My guess is my system will continue to evolve and I believe it to be a separate hobby from experiencing music (live or at home). While I enjoy the system hobby, If I had to choose one it for sure would be experiencing the music. I am thankful I do not need to make that choice.

The funny thing is that even with great equipment or a live performance the responsibility for that emotional connection is ultimately my responsibility and mine alone. The performer whether live or at home can't do it for me. It could be the best performance of their career live or recorded but if I don't connect there is nothing; for me anyways.

So here in the United States today is Thanksgiving. It is my favorite holiday because for me it is about being grateful for all the blessing in my life.

So I am grateful for the opportunity to experience live music. I am grateful to have a home music system that usually helps me connect with the performer and performance.

But I am most grateful to be blessed with the ability to make that human connection. It stirs my heart and makes me smile. Happy Thanksgiving to all.  :thankyou:

 

Fred, that is a most beautiful post.

I just like to talk back to you so you see it was appreciated with a lot of sensitivity (I hope that is readable).


You just expressed more directly what I simply called "playing the guitar". And, (I hope) obviously this is not about playing the guitar as such, but a. play it before the audience and b. play it together with the rest of the band.
Often b. comes ahead of a. but it may depend on who you are.

So yes ...
With the notice for others that the small phrase of "being a chef" means the cook (but head of the kitchen), this too is in my view a cheer artistic performance. Here too it can be personal, but a good chef will express all the creativity which lives in him/her and does that for the audience. Not much different from my father playing in the orchestra, who did not practice over and over in hour house to earn some money, but to PERFORM.
He, coincidentally, was an audiophile at the same time, who not only was always working on his own amplifiers, TT mods and loudspeakers, but in the end was also working on the acoustics in the concert hall.

I think I kind of explicitly continued his work.
So if it is about Thanksgiving (what we don't know/celebrate over here) then maybe if I could play a 10000dB more loud, he could hear it ?
:thankyou:

Finally I got my PC up and running again with OS W10Pro 10586.0 and XX 2.03a playing (for the time being) in NormalOS + Unattended.

I find the Sound Quality very good. The system is like a magnifying glass. Very resolved and open. Quick, dynamic and uncoloured. Treble is pure, bass is deep, tight and tuneful.

Ok, when I read some of the misgivings from others here, I agree that the midrange could have been slightly more organic, and the soundstage could have been even more "embracing". Being very critical, I might say my present setup is not that seducive. BUT what I hear is not much lacking. It is quite close to nirvana.

I can certainly live happily with W10Pro 10586.0 as it sounds today, knowing that I still have to complete the setting tweaks. Also I feel there is so much "right" in W10, that I'm confident Peter will manage to sort out the remaining artifacts.

-------


UPDATE: Q5 = 2 is a step in right direction. Midrange becomes more "liquid". Right now having a great listening session with The White Album (24bit USB stick version), hearing details I never heard before. Playing Blackbird is like being inside a birds cage. Remarkable bass playing by Paul on the other tracks.

OK, for the moment it seems W10 users are split in 3 camps:

• Version 10074
• Version 10586.0
• Version 10586.x and others

10074 is the choice of Peter, but is troublesome, not easily available and I haven't heard it.
So I have to settle with the "next best" 10586.0, which I downloaded a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, I find 10586.0 to be very, very fine sounding. I don't know what I am missing (10074), but it can't be much.

The purpose of this post is to discuss the best settings of 10586.0.
First, Colin deserves a medal for finding Q5=2. It opens up the midrange, without paying any cost, soundwise.

I also tried out his other settings, as described in his signature, but I didn't like them. Although they do "something" in the midrange, I find the bass suffering. In short - the one and only Q1 value for me is 14.

With Q1=14 I get exceptional tight, deep and tuneful bass. Here, the 10586.0 is the best I've heard. With Marvin Gaye Let's Get It On [24/192 DVDA] Suddenly the percussion is in the lead on all tracks. Same with Paul McCartney's bass on The White Album, and many others I have played during the weekend.

Now, If I just can identify the very last optimal settings somewhere, then 10586.0 will be a sonic heaven!

Hi Pedal,

A few remarks first :


The only other will be 10565 and other users with 10.586.x I don't know of.


Although correct in itself, your list as a whole suggests that I am quite alone with my 10074. This is not correct;
Everybody favors 10074 except for two of which one I don't trust because he only tells it is fine, without judgment whether 10074 is better or not. Then there is a 3rd and this is you, but you don't know the difference (because did not try 10074).

This leaves exactly one person who btw is unknown to us and does not use a NOS1(a).  This is not important at all, however, you seem to bind conclusions on this which conclusions a. do not exist and b. what exists can not be much relevant to you.

Also see next post, which I planned for today anyway.

Regards,
Peter

So, next round ...

A few days ago this post of Paul emerged : Re: Are all MOBO's (of the same type) Equal? (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3398.msg36625#msg36625) with this excerpt from it :


and suddenly I saw the light ...
... The over-emphasized sound of all W10 versions except 10074 comes from the Silverstone USB3 card ...

I say it more often - it becomes too d*mn difficult. So, today one must be capable of recognizing that this Windows 10 crazy (negatively meant) sound originates in a USB3 interface.
Well, I did that and I appeared correct ...

So two days ago I gave 10586.0 another go.

What a difference !

So for those who forgot or don't know :
The Silverstone card implies a sound where the high frequencies (can) go on/off in fast fashion and where "holes" in the sound appear. Mind you, at a rate of say 5KHz. So highs receive sharp boundaries.

And this is exactly what suddenly sprung to my mind : Windows 10, 10586.0 ahead, exhibits this same sound but say with deeper holes. More rough. Far too rough. Blax sound.
It does bring forward all kind of detail otherwise not heard (especially in the somewat lower regions), but the balance is way off.
Ok.

So I stuck the (Clairixa) USB in the MoBo's USB3 and had a try ...
... with the result of no single "hole" being heard any more.
So actually the culprit is the Silverstone ?
It looks like it.

But ahead of noticing that the sound has normalized, was the again stuffed-ears sound from 10586.0. Really, it is hard to survive. And seriously, only because I had been working for two days on overcoming that not-fresh sound, it is that I lasted that long with it. Until yesterday when I thought to play something with deep bass and some rythm and when I also found that again it did not "work" at all. No bass really and no rythm. Really odd.

I can summarize the problem with 10586.0 like this :
- Not allowed to use the Silverstone;
- It brings a stuffed ears feeling anyway;
- It does not work anyway; nothing sucks you in. Balance is explicitly wrong.

---

As a last test I thought to do it some other way around;
I booted into 10074 and left the Clairixa USB cable where it was - in the MoBo socket.
Ha !
Dull sound.

Funny actually, because I use the Silverstone for ages and never tried any more without. So now I know and the difference is more huge than I recall from when I used it at first.
Without it, sound becomes rather flat. I don't mean "in space" but regarding the now lacking holes (see earlier in this text). Dull. Not fresh though not really stuffed ears. No sparkle.

So Clairixa hopped over to the Silverstone and all was correct right away.

Only candidates at this moment, and for me and my system, are Windows 8 and Windows 10 Build 10074. I think the 10074 will win this.

Peter

OK,

It seems I have jumped on the wrong train (W10 10586.0). However 10586.0 was the only one being available to me last week, and beeing the audiophile I am, instantly I started the tweaking process.

But let's not waste time on the second best: Where can I get hold on the W10 10074?

hehe ...
Are you sure you can take this ? haha

Getting Specific W10 Builds (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3391.0).

Please be smart and get yourself another disk for this. Then you can more easily compare (swap disks).
Dual boot is also possible, but I don't advise that in your (growing experience !) situation.

Regards,
Peter

I already erased one HD with music (all my Christmas and OST music) while fidling with the installation, so I paid the price of learning...  :sad:

But I am doing progress, and will make an attempt. I am curious to try 10074 and do some testing on my own.

In the longer run I plan buying the XX PC with everything pre-installed, together with NOS1 Upgrade, but it will have to wait till 2016 sometime.
(I promised the kids to purchase the home cinema in our basement before Christmas, so my cash flow will be low for some months after that).

In terms of Silverstone USB card which I have recently added for the first time to XXhighend v202 and 10074.

I can't believe the improvement this brings to the music. Definitely more muscial, listenable. This has held me up trying later OS versions and v203a.

In fact I will just add v203a to 10074 next as this should be simple enough.

Robert

All,


Time for an update here;

Yesterday was my fourth night with 10586.0 again and at some stage I expressed that the sound is getting so eerie now, that it is actually unbelievable.
So as I announced in between the lines elsewhere ... Yes, with the Intona Isolator in the chain I explicitly decided to try 10586.0 again. And, most probably it has been in this very topic that I told more than once that it seems that we (me) need better "hardware". Read : that the culprit by now had to be sought somewhere else.
I guess I was right ...

In brief here's what I did, since the Intona :

I listened through the Intona for 4 days with W10 10074. This brought me euphoria Re: Intona High Speed USB 2.0 galvanic isolation (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3297.msg36926#msg36926).

Then I started listening to 10586.0 for the first day and thought "huh ? - does it sound even better or is it all over wrong ?". I couldn't decide really as I needed to play more different music, but since it was the first day of Christmas, it was Christmas music only (over here).

The second (day of Christmas) it went the same, and at some stage I started to notice that all (!) was so forward that I thought it might drive me crazy. Notice that this was about background music, always (c'mon, think Christmas !). So I found it too profound or I was playing too loud. A choir during dinner is nice, but a choir being all around your dinner table watching over you, is not. Not for me.
But wrong it never was and annoying it never did.

The third day was more of an annoying evening itself, because 10586.0 was starting to play tricks on me. Thus, I now was more actively controlling it (stop, select next album and such) but soon I lost the connection from the Remote (RDC). From there totally nothing could be done with it - not even plugging in the monitor and keyboard + mouse. It needed a reboot (by hard power off).
Soon this happened a second time and I actually was not able to really listen. I was more busy with the attempt to get the connection going and then reboot after all. :aggressive:

When it happened for the third time, I thought "okayy, this isn't going to be it" with not so explicitly in mind that it was Walhalla. I just didn't know it and listened to maybe 20 hours of Christmas music. So : "Let's try 10565 then".

Wow, that did not last for 10 minutes. Strange ... now *that* was annoying and cold.
I couldn't tell whether it now was worse than say 2 months ago, or that it was just relative to 10586.0, but I really could not get myself keeping on listening to it. So, into 10586.0 again, this time leaving in the hdd  so it would save me one activity when a next reboot would be needed (this is all boot-from-RAM stuff). I also decided to have all right, right from the start, so I wouldn't even need a connection for control; make the playlist somewhat longer and have a go again.
I don't have any recollection of what really happened further as my mood wan't the best any more and it was late.

Yesterday I decided that it had to be the LAN shutting off (except for the RDC part) causing 10586.0 troubles, so I left it on (Keep LAN - Persistent). To start with the end of that - all kept on running now.

But this now was the first day that I could really pick what to play and ... oh boy, was it all good (not referring to my picks).

What occurred to me was actually what I already knew from 10856.0 : bells. Bells bells bells and more bells.
Yes, imagine the Christmas music which shows a few bells here and there too. Of course I noticed it, but I also already knew that it was exactly the culprit once "sought".
From the same post I quoted from in the beginning of this post :


So of course I tried that too, and was excited to hear those super loud bells again, and ...
Nothing.
Well, nice bells still, but not the super loud and also no shattering at all. Just a track but with nice bells, which kind of bells I had been listening to for half an album just before.  The bells that make you feel eerie because you keep on thinking that it is not possible; something like an infinite resolution (infinite ferquency would be the better term, for bells working out so great).

---

So what's up this time ?

Maybe not quite unexpected - it is and remains "USB" which implies so much. Ok, we could call it "computer" or "noise from", or "stupid interface", but it is totally clear that with the isolation of the USB interface, a whole new world of sound can be explored. And if it is not the isolation itself, then it still is this (Intona) device which coincidentally works out so well for ... yea, what ?

For a Windows 10 10586.0 Operating System which otherwise was judged as the worse by me ? Which presented a stuffed ears feeling with the balance al over totally wrong ? which preseted raw sound and only cold "not-music" ?
How can it be.

By now I forgot a bit how I judged 10074 with the Isolation, except for "infinitely good". And oh, it just was and I'm sure it still is (nothing changed there). But 10586.0 makes it explicitly eerie. Apart from all the sounds being so explicit (this alreasy was so without the Isolation), there's now the additional -almost explicitly- working out of it all. That it all now is as intended and that the intention has been to be sucked into the crazy world of the creator(s).
I tried to see speakers but only saw things flying. I tried to think of a next album/track to play, but could only wait for the next track of the same album playing. I once again thought that it would be completely useless to obtain tracks in the Demo Gallery, because without exception all would go in. So wait for the next track to be the better one, which it always was.
Be drugged.

---

Here's my list which is not exactly your list, but possibly prepare to obtain the same (if you can believe anything I'm sprouting anyway) :

XXHighEnd 2.04 (I am still sure this makes a huge difference over 2.03 - and it has been confirmed by quite a few, by email <- better to put it in the forum !).

The Intona Isolator (I didn't see anyone who received his yet).

The boot from RAM, removed HDD and nothing else connected than LAN cable (only CPU fan running).

My other super explicit hardware change to attack strange Windows 10 beyond 10074 in the first place (nobody knows what it is, but everybody is allowed to know that it will be available to you soon).

With the above all together, I can't even start to describe what all is heard more than without it. So we must be careful to keep on understanding what is happening in the first place, because these things (hearing more) have never been in order - not from my hand. It (hear more) also tends to be a phenomenon which is not used often any more in this forum, because it is a weak thing. I mean, it is very very easy to "tune" for hearing more, but it usually ends up with things being wrong, like certain frequencies being emphasized while others should go along but don't (the typical 10586.0 without Isolator). But now it really is time to express that "a million" things more are in there (this will be the main difference with 10074, I think).
I will give you one example of this : Ahmad Jamal - A quiet time, Track 04 - Petry;
I have this in my Demo Gallery because once upon a time I found that all sorts of strange sounds were heard towards the end and I thought it was nice to watch that in the future and maybe see it develop further. Well, try it today ...
The whole complete 6 minute track is all one big pile of strange sounds, with a piano now in the background.

Peter

But must have been coincidence because with some other tests a couple of hours ago, it again went wrong.
Stupid thing is that there's no single way to access the PC, you you really must reboot.

Later I am going to try with deactivating the "Stop W10 Services".

Peter

Funny ...
Yesterday I tried Windows 8 in this same configuration (Intona in the chain) and I did not like it at all. My idea about it : spoiled already.

So it seems not to be about Windows 8 not responding well to the Intona, but that all what Windows 10 is doing - and which a.o. is about adding variation to the higher frequency sound (Silverstone USB card alike), is now smeared all over by Windows 8. This is relative of course, because at first it was Windows 10 making the Windows 8 highs more "grey", so I am sure it is the same thing. But W10 is so right by now that it is apparent immediately how "wrong" W8 is.

My so far always observartion of W8 being more accurate, by now has gone. With deep listening it still might be, but a. there is less music (crucial !) and b. the accuracy "effect" is highs which now seems synthesized.

So I am spoiled (likely) or got used to the sound of W10 (I refuse to believe that).

Peter

Yesterday I sat down to explicitly observe how 10074 now would sound, with the Intona. Actually I was a little bit afraid that I had to come back on my 10586.0 = so good verdict, because I hardly listened to 10074 with the Intona in the chain. What I recall of it was that it surely brought a big difference, and was more "right".

So I rebooted into 10074, gave one of my favourites a go and ...

... hmm ...

I think I now have found a new "audio descriptive term", although I'd need to find the exact word for it. But new it is :

What I heard with 10074 in relation to the knowledge of 10586.0 is :

A technical sensation (as in the medical term), bringing extasy for the wrong reason.

How to explain that;
I now saw that one can be excited for something which is for technical reasons only. A sort of : okayy, this surely is not the real thing, but I like it for its bass. I hate the greyness of the cymbals, but alas, net it is better than something which does not show that bass.

This was just an example (meaning, nothing about good bass or whatever) and it just came so clear to me how we (apparantly !) can like pure fake *IF* we only know about the real thing first (so, debunked then). So a 100 things occurred to me, which did not occur to me at all previously, in the very same situation. In itself logic, because it is always so that "references" are crucial. But to even emphasize the importance, what about this :

As you may recall I have had one continous complaint over time (for 10074) and that is that it is grey to some degree. Worse is that this bring a flavour while I don't like flavours. However, over Windows 8 the win is quite easy for me, so I accepted that (psychologically this is difficult for me, but I did so anyway). Now :

Once you are used to something like 10586.0 in this very Intona situation for a week or two, and *then* you revisit 10074 then you won't last long. That bad ...
No wait, not bad. But the explicit obervation for listening to it for all the wrong reasons in the world. And the greyness is now killing.
It is here and there and left and right and top and bottom and in and out and ... where all the things you hear are explicitly not right. So maybe that's my new Audio Descriptive Term : Not Right (as the opposite of Right and which you can only know when you listened to Right).

Seeing myself writing this blurp, I must honestly say that a week ago or so already, I thought to wrote about :
Okay, so this is it. More real as this it is not going to be. Drums are more realistic now than my 100% realistic self recording of the drum kit, so maybe it is time to (dare to) express about it. I didn't because there's always more behind the horizon, I learned. But now I do so after all.

The change is so drastic that I dare say that those who like 10074 (but say with Intona to be on the safe side) don't know what they are talking about and don't know what they are missing. About how sound can be so right.
And so wrong.

Thus 10074 is wrong and if you read all I sprout then you have seen me writing that a couple of times. Still that was only an (expressed) observation and I could not be bothered about it really. Also, going back to Windows 8 only brought less joy.
But it really needs 10586.0 (at this moment) to see how ...

... well, how right that is. Explicitly Right.

Peter

At the start of 2016 I had/took some time to change form Windows 8/XXHighEnd 2.02 to Windows10 (10586.0)/XXHighEnd2.04x. The installation went without any problems, which was not expected, because an earlier attempt to change to Windows10(10074) gave a lot of problems and hassle and finally I gave up :wacko2:

The improvement in sound quality of Windows10 (10586.0)/XXHighEnd2.04x is much bigger than anticipated, a much more smooth, real/realistic sound, detailed, yet pleasant and with less hardness than before.

The funny thing however is that I accidentally connected the NOS1a to an external USB card I use to connect my USB music disk to. When I changed that to the Silverstone card, the sound became less involving and the soundstage recessed a little bit and also shifted to the right a bit. After a few songs it bothered me so much, that I changed it back to the other card and now the sound became more “right” and pleasant. So for me the Silverstone isn't used anymore for connecting to the NOS1a.

Also XXHighEnd 2.03/4 is running much smoother and faster and that is a bonus too.

This weekend I ordered the Intona and it should arrive one of these days. I’m really curious, because I can hardly imagine the sound to improve much once more.

Next on my list is to buy a second hand pc (there are loads of ex-corporate pc's for cheap) to serve as a music server. When I get this working I will start to think about the RAM-disk.

One step at a time please.

Soundwise, 2016 started great. Thanks Peter  :good: 

Regards,
Stanley

So here a short verdict regarding the Intona I received 3 days ago.
As most of you know by now, I purely listen with Headphones since I do not not use a speaker setup anymore. One of the reasons for that is space and really poor room accoustics.

So the main thing that surprised me with the Intona was the added depth and width of the soundstage.
The localisation of instruments is *much* improved. When I close my eyes, the illusion of having the music in front of me is perfect now.
Soundstage is really graphical, 3D like. It is simply fantastic.

And I am not even using a second Clarixa cable yet.

So now I am wondering what else Peter has up the sleeve.... can it get any better?

Michael

My Intona arrived 3 days ago and I'm also using it with "half" Clairixa.

My perception is exactly what Michael describes, although with speakers. Sound is "airy" and with some music even "spooky" sometimes.

 :good:

Stanley