XXHighEnd

I just installed the Win 10 build 14393.0 as offered by Peter through download.
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3683.msg39307#msg39307

With first listenings, as Peter mentions, there is lots of HF and the percussions are more lively and this is how I like it !

The only drawback I could see is that some voices may be a little more on the "edgy" side, but I will need to compare with Win 10 build 10586.0 and Windows 8.

As for the bass (LF), since I am still discovering the "goodies" from my recently upgraded NOS1a and I have noticed more presence and weight in that register, it is harder for me to report.

Alain

Thank you for reporting Alain !

I actually did not tell so much about it in the "announcing" topic, but the presentation is so different that it is hard to compare with anything in the first place. This is how I came to the more strange comparison with parts of Windows 7, others from W10 10074 and sound as the Silverstone card produces.

But for presentation as a whole, I don't know what to say really;
So far, all albums I play with one or a few tracks put to my Demo Gallery and which I now play in full, go track by track now all in the Demo Gallery. This means quite explicitly that tracks I did not find worth while to hear back regularly (for whatever reason back at the time) are now suddenly very worth while.

What I notice is the high level of foottapping, but in a rythmic up-sweeping sense. I suspect that the PRaT (Pace, Rythm and Timing) level is suddenly very high ...
Something really really happened.
I found myself singing along with a piano piece I actually don't know. Now who is singing along with a piano piece ... :swoon:

If anything, the voices could be a tad laid back, but not sure yet; yesterday I tried to discover the reality of that, but this is not so easy - especially not because there's so much going on elsewhere, suddenly.

The whole thing seems "unbreakable" if you know what I mean. It can't get too loud, you can't pick the wrong album, ... everything not only sounds wonderful ... it just sounds great. It should be capable of reversing a bad mood (although that seems too tough to do in general).

It feels like the lower frequency attacks (like the hit on a drum) are now very gradually evolving. You just hear and feel the hit coming.
Meanwhile the high frequency accuracy (sharpness / freshness / speed) is there as never before. It is (IMO) the combination of these both which makes a snare drum (snare on) for real.

Okay, now I said a couple of things. Hopefully you are all experience similar or even better ...

Peter

Peter,

I always wonder how you can relate the sound of a previous version such as Windows 7 compared to a very recent version, but I trust your reports as I know that when you do (report), you have a method that has so often proven to be right.

I am excited too about this and I may even "scr*p" my experiences with Windows 8, but for the moment I will leave it on the disk. My 3 OSes (apart from the TEST version, build 14388) will be the ones I play with for a while, but you define the different attributes so well, it incites me to go "with the pack" if I can express things this way.

So I will put accent on this new version and yes it is well weighted in the LF, but man are those highs an incitative to smile !!!! It almost brings the sunshine to the grey weather we have her (but at least it is not hot and humid as it has been last week).

I hope that more will weight in to report their findings, but the percussions... It is mad :)

Golden Earring "Radar Love" is in a league in itself with all those percussions. I feel crazy...

Alain

All is working fine here. Only a first impression.

Yes, that treble is somewhat lighter, thinner and even seems bright but above all, and after a while the feeling that prevails is the clarity.
Bass seems noticeably better, can be perceived the different bass tones better than before. Now the bass is not only an instrument to mark the rhythm, instead it makes music for itself. Maybe it is something obvious but to hear it clearly is not so easy.

Above all, again, this new 14393.0/XXHE v2.06b increases the consistency across the spectrum. The entire sound spectrum seems to live in a more harmonious and coherent manner. There is no sound holes. Now the sounds are played without pushing or overlap each other.

In conclusion, I would say it is again a step forward, although it must be done with a little time, especially to get used to the treble.

Putting a new operating system on the RAM-OS with the latest version of XXHE with the settings (they work for me) is an extraordinary advance in comfort and ease of use.

Congratulations and thanks, Peter!

Juan

Hi all,

With the notice that the responses in here are overwhelming (not, but thank you Alain and Juan !), I now will be the only one not liking 14393.0. That is :

Yesterday, after several days of holding on to it, I finally gave up, booted into 10586.0 and had a great (listening) time.
14393.0 is too difficult to have right or not too bright or whatever it is that gives me the nerves;

I don't think it is wrong per se, but it will be the kind of "Silverstone card" behaviour which now gives too much of a character to the sound, or which is high frequency on-off stuff which is tiring or so. It is hard to tell.
The metal is fine, but nothing now is "soft" as such. Attacks also contain it. Something like that ...

Anyone ?

Peter

Yes Peter, today I was thinking something similar. These highs make,  somehow, to miss the coherence of the whole. I thought that the loss of charm perhaps was because the ear had become accustomed, as usual, to the new sound. But those highs are still disturbing, more in some CDs than others, and never again, after all, look natural. Those highs make that this 14393.0 version has lost its capacity to thrill. So far.

Regards,
Juan

I was using the High filter 705600/768000 / 4.14%. Changing it to the High filter 705600/768000 / 3.72.0% seems to make the highs smoother besides a larger soundstage. Not sure yet if it solves the problem but I'm afraid that not totally.

Juan

I was thinking something like this too. The first days can be exciting but after a while, some aspects can be a little too "sharp" (of "fresh" like you use to say Peter). For me it reflects in voices with a small "roar" as if the microphone was in the person's mouth (strange image, but...).

I realize that differences with a new version can sound appealing at first, then can become irritating. The "Silverstone" sound is a very good example.

Win 10 build 10586 seems to be the "natural" one - something like a "reference". Windows 8 (it is probable that I am one the the very few that still uses it sometimes) is a little less natural in the HF but it makes wonders in the LF, even if I find the differences less obvious (LF wise) with Win 10 build 10586.

What I find interesting is that these different versions alter the sound (or should we say the path and processing or the signal) enough to make things sound different, even if this was said many times.

Alain

Interesting :) I have tried the custom filters a few times but I am unsure of the results. When I do not perceive enough differences (my hearing is not that good), I tend to go back to AP (Arc Prediction) alone... Maybe I should try the custom filtering more often...

Alain

As for others participation, well summer and vacations but also lots of discoveries that you have unwrapped Peter - all may explain this... You are so active (but I certainly will not complain) :)

Alain

I havn't commented because I'm still undecided.

But I am trying Paul's suggested settings(not sure which OS he tried this on, his sig says 10586) SFS 2/120, Q1=1 with 14393 and think I prefer them to SFS 120/120, Q1=10.

I have also removed the Intona temporarily. Even though the Intona does some good things I suspect it also throws a veil over the music.

Not dissimiliar from my experience with power filters and the Silverstone card.

Certainly since returning to no Min OS Base and back to RAM OS in 14393 it has become more buggy. Now I get odd errors(hard error box) but it still plays music.

Anyway I would like to listen to music and not the settings before I go mad!!!

Robert

I was trying to rewind when it was the last time I was really impressed with the sound and it was when I changed my settings to the new ones: SFS 120.0 Max 120.0. XTweaks 43, 100,- 1, 1. Q1:14, Q3:0,  Q4:1, Q5:0 AND ClockRes: 1ms in place of 0.5ms.The custom filter was High 705600/768000 / 4.14%. And all that happened with W10-10586.0. XXHE v2.06a. I tested it again today and again the sound impressed me the same way. I changed the ClockRes to 0.5ms and the voice presence and smoothness was lost and the piano was somewhat a bit strident. Thinking that maybe the clue was in the clock resolution I returned with the same settings to the W10-14393.0 version. The result is that still the highs are a bit strident. So I return, for now, to W10-10586.0 with the settings mentioned above. However let me mention that the W10-14393 seems to have a better definition compared with W10-10586.0

Juan

Hey Robert, you are really getting the hang of this all.
Maybe you recall me saying this :


(the "for all of you" maybe must be "on behalf of all of you" for better English ?)

So that. I don't use the Intona but now something else. This is prototype of something which will even be ultimately better, but anyway with Intona I am not so sure whether I would have standed 14393.0 for very long. The highs are quite a level of "more" again and not for the better at all. That is, not for the better compared to that device I now use. But that device also brings quite "ultimately" better sound to 10568.0.
So it is hard to compare in your place, but if I had to do it with the Intona I would have said No.
But go figure, because I also have the B'ASS active (PCB's for that finally arrived today ! - but to test out) so all becomes very difficuly to lay out for you all. Still I can't hold back if I see a glimps of possible improvement. But this is also how more than 2 persons should have a verdict ...

Btw, my 2nd last night before I reloaded 10586.0, was almost all dedicated to finding the better settings for 14393.0. I ended at an SFS of 1, Clockres of 1 and Q1 of 14x1 (and thus not 14x10). I thought this was better standable.


Well, the sort of misery is that I too have the idea that 14393.0 is the better one, but that something else is destructive to it. Here's a funny thing that you will feel aquainted with :

With the Q1=14x10, Clockres is 0.5, SFS =120, NOS1 Driver Buffer = 16, all feels right. So it may get on my nerves for a not really known reason, but what's really strange is that as soon as I start "randomly" change one of those values back to the more commonly know (for me, like NOS1 Driver = 4), all falls apart and within seconds I am back at the old setting. Now, somewhere deep down this tells me that 14393.0 may be very good indeed, just because things belong to each other (sorry for this poor English). All fits. That we have some nerve breaking thing in there, could be a filter, for example. So yes, I saw you guys writing about that, but I did not think of changing those. It also feels a bit like the culprit being in that domain, althoug I only started to think of it when I saw you wrote about it.
I am still pretty sure that I hear much more through 14393.0, so why wouldn't that also show the baddies better ?

Peter

Peter,

When you mention something better than the Intona, do you mean that the Intona is bringing something bad since build 14393 ?

I must admit that I never put the Intona in doubt since the beginning, as I felt something really good with it.

Alain

Alain remove the Intona and listen. This is not caused by 14393 but is made worse. I'm not going back to 10586 yet. Whatever's wrong with 14393 will be solved I'm sure.

I had reason to remove it while upgrading a mod chip in my DAC and it definitely seeded doubts about its overall sound benefits in my mind.

I always have a problem with adding more wires and boxes between components. More connections/wires are problematic, less has always been best.

Ultimately the benefits of Intona should be incorporated in the DAC if these prove to be the case.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I will do the suggested test as soon as I will have the occasion (probably somewhere this coming week-end).

I actually am using a Sotm PCIe USB card, with the 5V provided by a linear PSU for the Intona. I can't say if that config is improving things but I can at least say that the sound is softer than the Silverstone.

I am from the school of thought where simpler is better too. What bugs me is that since a PC is a "noise box", maybe the inconvenience of 2 connections could sometimes overcome the inconvenience from the noisy PC, but I know that other components, potential ground loops and other situations also are to be accounted in the results that each of us hear.

Regards,

Alain

I haven't had the chance to try 14393 yet, but did quickly take a listen with/without the Intona yesterday:

Without. Very easy on the ear. 'Organic'. 'Wholeness' to the sound. Thicker, deeper sound.

With. Much cleaner sound - as if a blanket of low-level background noise has been lifted across the spectrum. Longer decays with everything. Beautiful resonance of instruments. More forward. More dynamic. (Certainly can sound too edgy with SFS <0.1 and clock res at min.)

Over here, there's simply no contest. The Intona is a 'must'.

Mani.

Well I retried Intona with 14393 and its a no go. I'm back to settings SFS 120/120, clock res .5ms, Q1 10.

Intona is not right with 14393 but probably with anything. Seems slow and undetailed.

I played a favourite track from Aurora - Daddy Trane & Cousin Wayne.

This old recording(recorded 1988) released by Denon 1993 stands the test of time.

The recording is excellent, great double bass, drums and sax. Cymbals really shine.

Robert

In my view the Intona can't be "technically tested". However, it can "technicaly fail". So ... I don't need to try the INtona again with 14393.0 to understand what you mean. I agree and I predicted it, although I could not be sure because of other things in the chain, plus that other device now instead of the Intona, what could actually be the real merit of *that*.
So many apples and oranges, but  nevertheless I felt right (in aftermath and as it seems).

Where you can't "technically test" the Intona, in my view, is where it brings more reality and nothing else. So for 10586.0 it just does that and there is no way that I can say anywhere things like "more highs" or "crispier" or "better bass" or whatever. "More reality" for 100% sure yes, but what (technically) contributes to it is beyond me.
So the strange thing is that with 14393.0 there *is* a technical merit suddenly, but it is a negative one.

Still, with my other device in place, 14393.0 also does not win the game from 10586.0. Envision (14393.0) the highs to be as sharp but with a darker tone so that it becomes bearable.
But in the end too much of a flavor and thus wrong.
And nerve wrecking - again "somehow".

Maybe we will fnd something later and it should start with my new device ...

Peter

Mani, if you are looking for your posts, look here : A bit of testing with the Intona (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3698.0).

Thanks,
Peter

Has nobody tried 14393?

Gosh I'm back at 10586 with Intona and its not the same as 14393 without Intona. Have to say I'm very unsettled by it all. Can't help but feel 14393 gives something more that's left me in this position.

The suggestion that Intona may not be right is not what people want to hear. They are busy building new cases for their Intona's(copper foiled, aluminium boxes).

Nobody on CA even mentions this latest W10 version(14393) soundwise?
 
Is this because we are ahead of the game(whatever that is!!!)

Perhaps everybody's happy with what they hear????

Friday night Robert

Robert,

At CA people don't even hear a difference with W10, W8 or W7 or whatever. At least not that I noticed.

Quite many of us frequent CA too or at least are lurking there. But nobody (of us) really expresses about our experiences. It looks like we are a different kind ...

Peter

About 14393.0 ...

I find it highly addictive. This is literal because I want to return to it, no matter I know in advance I may not like it.

But ...

Since two days I found a means to let it work. At least it looks like it ...

There is this strange combination that even I did not think about : the effect of the two Timer settings in XTweaks, which just don't work in the RAM versions of the OS.
BUT
I got them working !

Now think ...
Yesterday I suddenly thought : Hey, wait ... this SFS of 120 etc., why wouldn't that be caused by those Timers not being "optimal" and such ?? It really feels like such a thing as well. So while day before yesterday I got all running with the Timer settings now active and thought that the sound was better, yesterday I thought of this combination and the possible reason why we went to SFS=120 etc. ... and ... set it all back. Wow, what a difference !!
So SFS=0.12, Q3,4,5=1, Q14 = 14x1 and ... hardly highs to be heard but (I mean, nothing of the 14393.0 kind at all) *without* any stuffed ears feeling. So now the fun can begin, because with such a difference between the extremes, all sorts of "sound" will be in the middle as well.
But sofar I did not try anything else.

Of course for you this can't work yet as it requires 2.07. This is not out very soon, but I am working on it ...

Regards,
Peter


PS: Thank you Colin.

I see that I posted my last post in this topic already one week ago.
Well, still going strong !

Actually it is so that the other day I had to look what version I was using, becase it started to occur to me that nothing had annoyed me and/or nothing comes across as "rough" any more. But I saw it was still 14393.0, so all as intended (people who don't have the RAM-OS "mechanism" really don't know what thy are missing).

I noticed something else too, and it is as explicit as it is strange :
Rock works out so well now;

Let's say that Rock can have the general consensus of being "not nice" or "not beautifully sounding" the least. But this is not so any more.
It is also quite difficult to detect what actually causes it, because it kind of goes unnoticed. Think like : hey, by this time into the track I should have been annoyed to some degree ... so where's that part now ?? did I miss it or what ?

So with 14393.0 and the lower SFS etc. settings again (!!), the highs receive a smoothness but as metal as 14393.0 inherently is (or seems to be). This gives Rock exactly what it needs (according to my ears that is). The slap together with snap and "hardness" Rock is supposed to be, without it sounding ugly like in a "ohh, that is a bad recording because it is Rock". No !

Several times I talked about Progressive Rock in the context of that so much being able to show its era when the playback is "right", and I am sure that this is partly so because often this music is more gentle (take "Talk to the Wind" (King Crimson) and everybody will understand what I mean). But these days I get in the stage of being able to hear the deeper messages in/of Rock as well. Maybe hard to explain, but say that any track/song/piece has its meaning and it originated from something somewhere. So a violin player can put his heart to his instrument and we will see the mood of the violin player, but a group of artists (like a rock band) does the same and possibly more explicitly (they rehearse (for) it to bring across the whatever message best). This is what now suddenly starts to work for Rock.

Of course it can be so that I am getting old.
:swoon:
Peter


PS: There is something else I noticed yesterday which could even be more strange, and tonight I am going to check that for its merits (better). If I can confirm what I noticed already, I will open a new topic for that tomorrow.