XXHighEnd

Peter,

Thanxxxxxxxx again  :) This really sounds fantastic!! Man what a magician you are!! :thankyou: :soundsgood:

The moment i began to play the first thing that crossed my mind was that it indeed sound different. Like you told us before. It really needs a moment to get use to the differences.... But nothing more than a moment.. :grin:
The second thing was that it somehow sounded a bit "Warmer". But not to much.....
The thing i also nodiced was that there is peace in the room. Music and the room where it is played in, are now two separate things....

All 'n All everything falls into place.......

Thank you very much! :)

This is a great description which I noticed myself in the exact same way. Somehow you "need" a description for it which actually does not exist (so far). "Peace" is what came to our mind in this house ...

Mind you, I think this goes along with this (and I referred to it in the Releasenotes by the too low volume not being important anymore) : actually somehow it doesn't matter anymore how loud things play. The "peace" I think is derived from that. Something like "no need to change things".

But wait a minute ... did I say I was ready ?
:swoon:

Yes this is what i forget to write.... When before you need to open up the volume to hear everything. (Clarity) Now even at low volume clarity is (more) there...  :veryhappy:

Grtz

Gerard,

I'm sure you are familiar with playing "your" so called good music at a birthday party etc. Then, when the big day is there you play those carefully selected tracks, and there you are ... uh-ohh ... doesn't that disturb ? second is that someone asks you to put the volume down. Of course you don't want that but you agree anyway. That someone actually is right ...

Now, not that I recently bumped into such a situation, but it is the very first time in my life that this whole evening the music is playing (not loud) and I don't even notice it while being behind the computer screen. By this I can tell that something is very very different.
When I pay attention to the music playing I hear everything indeed, and when I do not pay attention, nothing disturbs me ... I don't hear anything.
My wife tells me the same without asking.

The mind peace experience !
:dntknw:


Here is a most crazy observation (don't laugh) : Besides I ask our 9 year old son to tell me when he hears "anomalies" in high frequencies which he might be able to capture while I myself am not capable of anymore because of, say, old age (which he indeed tells if so), I can "measure" him as a device when the music plays right. He swings it out like a young kid can do ...
Well, at least for some 3 hours each evening the music blasts through the room here, and exactly since 0.9u is playing here he seems to be the most swinging man on this earth. Such a kid is not under any control ...

For Dave (SeVeRd) : try it out on your daughter. :secret:

Peter

Nice writing!  :)

Yes Yes Yes........ I have a day off  :) And listening for a few hours now to my new discovered music collection!  :grin: I can tell you that i am really enjoing myself with this great new .9u present :blob8: :blob8:

Back to how peacefully it sounds or call it somekind of serenity that come's to my ears... Was it so irritating/stressed before this?  :( Well no and yes i guess. The thing i also nodiced is that before after a few moments of listening and i put the music OFF that the peace than was comfortable. Now there is no difference between OFF and PLAYING
Even when i play Slagerij van Kampen. (Big drums)



You are so totally right there, it is possible to switch effortless between some writing and back to the music again... Like a ON/Off button in your head.  :wacko:


EDIT: There was a day that i asked you this.... 
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=278.msg1774#msg1774

Well afterall (though in a different way) i think you fixed it!!!  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


 :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Hey Gerard,

As long as we both are not the only ones experiencing it like this, I guess it is a not before discovered phenomenon. It should be in the league of "getting into the music" (which everybody understands) but more vague to understand when you never had the experience.
Btw, it is not something I created explicitly ... the only thing I did was making something more 1:1 again (hahaha, that helps for explanations).

Now how to call it ? the level of ... what ? How to describe it to those who never experienced it ...

Clarity sure is not it. I know of a "super clarity" system that just implies for the opposite : uneasyness. Shut off please !
All the technical properties it has (like clarity is one of them) do not decribe this total feeling. Similair to the (unknown !) properties that would describe/create "getting into the music".

You, I think, could say that it has a degree of "seeing the players". At least that is a feeling that comes over me at listening to horns, violins and voices. This by itself seems to be created by a means of "tightness" (hard to describe for me in english) like a super-stable voice. You can feel that things match up in air ... phase related. A bit similiar to a two-wat loudspeaker system where the bass and the mid/high can match or not. Coherent.
But this again all doesn't describe the sensation. It's still properties only (which not necessarily give the sensation, I'm sure).

"Sensation" itself might be in the area ...
But this may be relative to "less -" or "no sensation". Mind you, here too -similar to getting into the music- it looks like there's no gradation. So, although I can't be sure, it's there or it's not.
Spooky ...

Presentness. Yeah, somehow you can describe it like this, with the "not being present" as the positive side. But, this doesn't fit the directness everything expresses. So it's confusing.
That "presentness" is inconsistent with itself (as described) is an interesting matter ...

Gerard, you said the room is separated from the music now. This one didn't occur to me, but I think you are right. How ? what actually happens then ?
Maybe this "room separation level" is something to work with. But then I'd first have to listen and pay explicitly attention to that phenomenon.

Possibly this is not a separation from the room, but a separation from everything. I mean, it already occurred to me (and I really wondered) why I was closely listening to the music quality itself, french fries boiling in oil making a havy noise right behind me, the cooking hood at full power ditto ... and I found myself rathert explicitly thinking "I don't care !". Normally I wouldn't even start to sit down and listen seriously. So ...

... Concentration level. Ah, that seems a good one ! And mind you, it already exists in our world of audio. Maybe it's not very well defined and spoken of, but I think we all know about *or* your attention is with the music *or* you find yourself thinking of something else while you should have payed attention to such and so, and now the moment has passed.

Interestingly enough it -then- is this same concentration level that allows you to NOT pay attention to the music. To me this is almost more strange than being able to concentrate on the music. Like I told about it in the previous post ... typing stuff like this and during such mind setting there is just *no way* I heard music. Room separation, subject separation, concentration separation.

Officially it wouldn't help, but let me repeat at this stage that I told about CD Playback always having been wrong as I see it. So now I do it right. Just right, that's all.

Might this be similar now to the natural realism of you being in a room with 30 people, two people opposite of you with a table in between and you talking to those people, while right behind you -closer than the people you talk to- other people are talking, and you are not disturbed by that at all ? you are able to concentrate on the people you talk to. The others talk louder, but actually you don't hear them. You hear the people you talk to.
Now compare the same situation, but music plays. I think we all know, it doesn't need to be loud at all to disturb. Why ? is this because it is so much unnatural that our brain can't get it out of the way ?
Note that I don't have the experience yet of playing music at this birthday party, but that I feel that it won't harm anymore.

If I'm on the right track, is "naturalness" a property ? Ok, it could (or should !) but as an ICTer I say this is an inheritent and composed property of many other properties. So, useless. Naturalness could be way to describe the sensation though, but on the other hand ... what defines naturalness then. Me ? nope. We rather need that property that defines naturallness. Like "concentration level" is prone to it (I think).

There might be other properties that allow for more easy comparison (which "concentration level" does not, like "getting into the music" does not) and this seems to be an explicitly added warmth to instruments;
If you listen closely, you can sense that harmonics are (re)created in air. I talked about this (elsewhere) maybe one year ago already, and it occurred at certain pre-Engine3 versions. What I mean is, that harmonics of an instrument need not to be in the recorded data, in order to let the base tone characteristics recreate that harmonics anyway. I'm not sure whether it is *this* that creates the sound as of now ...

What I hear in really everything is a perfect added sound that came from under - upwards (in dutch : van onder uit). Like base tones were lacking, and *those* are added now. Can this be ? hardly. It more looks like the proof that undertones actually do exist and that *those* are able to be profound now (similar to just everything is more profound). Whether they are in the recorded data or are recreated in air ... I don't know at this time.

Ok, I stop here for now, because I tend to change my own subject.

Concentration level. :rofl:

At first it seems to me as a dynamic range compressor effect.

... which has what audible properties ? (I just don't know ...)

Simply put it makes the loud part sound lower and еоу lower part sound louder. It seems like more detail:)
But of course it is DSPing which I don't expect from XX. So as I said it just reminded me the effect of it.

Ah ... ok. No, I do nothing of the kind. Also I don't recognize the part "loud sound lower". I guess that you think it does because the lower parts seem to express ? :) So no, all levels express similarly. Well, to my ears. ;)

Peter,

I think you have a good point here.. Indeed music alway's has been something that whas anoying present in room with a bunch of people or to our wife as well. And than they say that a man cannot do two things at a time.. :arrogant: :).. I can say that for 80% of the time that i push the volume button of my receiver she touch the button as well. ( But in a whole different direction than i did.)  :( I really am going to have a test according to this. ;)

Strange thing is though (like you told) that in a conversation with someone in the same room and with the same amount of people you are capable of shutting thoose people down to come into your head and you are capable of concentrate to one person. That's alway's bin rather easy. Just like a clock tikking or a train in the bagground or cars driving on a highway. these are also blocked to come into our brains. ( After a few moments) Why not when a cd was playing.

And maybe naturalness is the word.... But cars driving as well a train what is so natural about that? Well we can say that the sound that come's from that are easy going. For our brain easy going that is. Maybe specifiek frequensie's Alway's where anoying.  :dntknw:


They alway's say that the room and the furniture that is in that room infects the SQ.... Like a stone floor ed. IMO also that not anymore.... It looks like that does not have anything/so much to do with each other... But there i could be wrong... It just feels like it :dntknw:


I also was wondering what it is.... Is there so much more to discover on a cd......

 :)

Hi,

I have to insist, that I really feel physical discomfort with this new sound. As if something is wrong in digital domain.
Or a bad jitter.

I admit there is more details now and such... I agree with all described by now.
Except that I feel that weird again as if I listen to a jittery CD. Although I don't get paranoid :) it is just not right somehow.

Could we ask Carlos Rodríguez, what does he think.

Andrey

ouch
I'm just getting started this morning on the set up.  Just dled and waiting for tubes to warm up.  Have to admit I'm a bit scared of this all.  My dac only accepts 16/44 or 16/48 (i've been setting Win at 16/44) so I'm not sure having a digital vol in there will be good....but ya, bout ready to try it all here.

I know Andrey has pretty good ears (having found an upper mid range peak I had when he listened here.. which I've gotten rid of and isn't prominent at higher vol...), but I'll still go in listening to this new version with open ears... wish me luck, heh.

Well, Good luck then !

...

Still alive ?  :)

Okay Andrey, thank a bunch !
Now I understand your post here : Volume and bit perfect setting ?  (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=382.0)
You suffer from a bad case of harmonic distortion ...

I recognize now what you mean, and what may appear to be good sound ... is not. Not for you anyway.
Can you tell me please : Can you cope with nos-DACs ?

Anyway, I will build in dither and then let's see again. I hope to do it tomorrow (Tuesday).

Peter

I have had many email conversations with Carlos and basically he has an older RME card that he really likes, which is not compatible with Vista. So at this time he does not plan to upgrade to Vista. He has modified the ASIO plugin (dll) for foobar (0.8.3) (running on XP) and he is very content with that.

But I too am dying to hear what he thinks of all this.

And Andrey,

Also, please tell me :
With what DAC do you have this bad sensation ? and what are your settings according to "DAC is" and "DAC needs" ? Also, at which Volume setting ?
I couldn't derive this from your post ... If it's the -0dB setting as you told in the other topic, I don't understand (yet :)). In that case (-0dB), please try to help me with what could have happened.

This is not necessary as of yet, as my previous posts make clear. I sure hear it too in certain music, but so far I can (could :)) accept it. The harmonic distortion is there though. It really needs dithering, but I'm afraid (:grazy:) it doesn't make the sound better. But if not indeed, so be it and 0.9u doesn't work.
Mind you, it is my opinion that if someone like Andrey has to visit the hospital because of so called "good sound", it just is not. No matter what "we" perceive from it.

Anyway, at this moment I'm far from thinking this is a lost case (the contrary), and first Andrey's answers to above questions are very important.
Next, I have some ideas on a good means of dither on one hand, or not needing it on the other. It is way complex though because I'm operating in area's outside of schoolbooks (and mr. Google for that matter). But hey, it's a way of living ! :wacko:

Hiyall

The systems been on most all the day (breaking in new vol placements I thought'd be good), but I didn't go in to sit and listen but for the last two hours.  Not enough time for conclusions, but thought I'd post.  First off... right now everything seems to be apples and oranges; meaning things are different, but I haven't been able to determine if things are better or worse....or just different.  That's a good sign; it means things don't strike me as being completely whacked.  Cymbals do seem very lifelike...nice decay.  I've got my 4 xover volumeS all turned up and am using the digital vol on XXHE.  That means the bass vol are full on but my high vol is cut back a little.  I have not gone back and forth on players yet... only listening to 9u0a.  At the xover I've always known a certain ratio of bass to high volumes to use.... I don't know if that ratio holds up at these full vol settings (or with this new player).  So differences I perceive might be explained by me trying to learn where to set vol controls to match what I've known.

At the moment I've been playing music probably louder than usual, but I don't hear any distortions (harmonic or otherwise yet)... it all sounds very good, clean but full.  I feel I need to cut back on the high end vols to pick up the same balance I had before... but that is a lot different ratio of volumes than I was listening at before (bass would normally be too loud at ratios I'm using now compared to before, but that doesn't seem to be a problem; cleaner/better defined bass? maybe...xover bass volumes control the 2 pairs of 12"s in the main speakers and 3 subwoofers).  Trying to match the same volumes between players is going to be much more difficult... I need to just find the best setting for each player and judge which one I like better... regardless of vol. (btw I would really like up down vol buttons and a window showing vol setting/number so I can turn off tool tips...)

I have not tried putting my vols back to where they were and putting XXHE at 0... i should probably try that too.  Right now XXHE vol is at -18db...I hate to go lower/move away from 0 because as I've said my dac only reads 16 bits (i think) and I hate to take away from that...am I taking away from the 16 bits by playing with the XXHE vol (staying out of the red area)?  All right, more listening now.  later all

Hi Dave,


Hmm ... yes, that's a not so smart construction I brew there. :swoon:

Ok. Dave, you *really* should put back your normal volume balance (including that resistor thing). Otherwise there would be *no way* of comparing. Things are so way way different, that you'd think it's the changed balance all the time.
You want to cut off highs ? you shouldn't -> This is the first example of it.
If anything has changed ... it is the bass. How can you tell now ?

Please put it back. :smirk:


-18dB is fine IMO. You'd have lost 3 bits there, but they are in the analogue noise anyway. As long as you don't hear distortion it's good. Try -48dB to learn what type of distortion it is or LOWER (-54) if you can't hear it properly because it's too soft. :yes:

Edit : To be clear : After putting everything back, set your analogue volume to Max ! (after setting the appropriate digital volume).
Edit2 : err ... I meant the volume that needs the most max, the others adjusted to that.

I was thinking the different ratio of highs to bass that I was using was maybe because at this analog vol level (full up bass/close to full highs) the resistor ladder was different than at lower analog settings....I don't have any home brew resistors in the path... just the volumes from teh passlab xover.

When I go into vol properties for the usb-dac I have only 3 choises
1) 16 bit 32000 Hz FM quality
2) 16 bit 44100 Hz CD quality  (*what i have chosen)
3) 16 bit 48000 Hz DVD quality

These are the only option I'm given... so that's all the dac can accept, right?  On the Stello usb-dac itself I have a switch that "upsamples" to 192 KHz (I don't use it; I have it set to bypass)... doesn't mention bits on the dac face, but...

I wonder why the usb doesn't except more rates than the 3 presented to me in vista vol properties if it can upsample on the dac itself... can't listen to any "hi-rez" WAVs... I have all CD stuff right now anyway, but someday ... I'll have to watch for that when I figure out what new DAC I may want ... I've figured NOS dac was good for CDs... but what about future hi-rez....and being able to control vol but not take bits away from the music would make me happier heh...

The sound device properties (Advanced Tab) from Vista do nothing according to Exclusive Mode. It will represent the DAC's possibilities though.
Your DAC may upsample, but that doesn't imply that it can accept the higher input rate. :sad:

:sleeping:

A couple back and forths with 9U0a on these two settings just now:

a) xover Volumes of bass full-on and highs 3/8 inch cut from that, XXHE vol -18 between 14 - 18

b)xover Volumes of bass at 10 oclock and highs just past 9oclock (normal listening positions), XXHE vol 0 Q1 18

Volumes not at same level... oh wellz, a) is a little louder (i'll turn b up a bit)... and right now I prefer a) setting: cymbals sound more alive bass more taut better defined...presentation comes forward a little but still depth to the soundstage... need time, but I'll keep posting every little thought that comes to mind heheh sorry

I've tended to like moving the Q1 up toward 18 more than 14 (moving toward 18 seems to bring more clarity)... is there a good reason for that? just my dac? or personal preference? (actually may like Q1 14 for my a) setting over 18 (too thinned out?...hmmm)

Well, I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with the USB Receiver Chip. For example, my M-Audio uses the TUSB3200C. I know this chip, as well as the TAS1020 can handle 24/96. But, for example, the PCM2903 (as used by Bel Canto and Musical Fidelity) are limited to 16/44.1 or 48. So whether or not the actual DAC is capable of higher does not matter.

Do you know which chip your Stello uses? Or would you be brave enough to open the case and find out?

Hiya Edward
Ya the Stello uses the PCM2704 chip.  (doh  except ment to be accept)

Unfortunately, the PCM2704 is like the PCM2903. Limited to 16/48.

I believe this is the inexpensive route for manufacturers implementing USB input on their DACs. This "off-the-shelf" solution enables them to provide USB without having to write drivers or special code for the firmware. (It uses the native OS USB Audio driver) Using the other two chips I mentioned means the manufacturer either has to provide a custom driver to install, or if they want to provide a "driverless" solution, then they have to specially program the firmware (such as Benchmark, Wavelength, and Empirical Audio do).

I tried it all with -0dB: I didn't want to change anything to compare with t version.
So mostly I am talking about -0dB.

Then I have the same "sensation" on both my setups.

1. A very cheap noname USB sound adapter, which supports only 16 bit 44.1/48kHz
2. ESI Juli@ The card uses an 8-channel multibit 24-bit 192 kHz DAC AKM AK4358.

I tried 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 dac setting for julia.
And I noticed a little difference with 24/44.1, it sounded a bit smoother to me than default 16/44.1 but still not as "painless" :) as 0.9t

What do you mean by "cope with nos DAC", don't understand.

P.S. visiting the hospital. that was a good one :)

Then luckily this is not about harmonic distortion ! :heat:

The downside is : now I don't know. Another question : did you try this all UnAttended ? (sorry if you already told it somewhere)

Yes it is all unattended.
To clarify: The SQ improvement is huge with 0.9ua version, it is just this little thing that poops the party for me, pardon my French.

Ok. For 0.9u-1 (maybe tonight) I'll try to get you something which is for 44.1/16 (ouput !) the most similar to 0.9t. Currently this is not 100% so but the differences in the (sequence of) code are so small, that I'd say it can't make a difference. Well, I said that before. :wacko:

Virtually there's another kind of problem : the fact that gross you find it better sounding. This too must come from the same small changes, so you can expect that to go then. Also see Version 0.9U feedback (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=375.0) where Russ seems to be witness of some huge changes, and which must be about the same changes you sense. That is, he too just does not use the volume (if I understand right) and in fact I couldn't understand what his raving was about;
Things apparently *have* changed in that (in fact unchanged) area, and maybe I must be careful myself to what changes *I* listen to, including the useage of the digital volume (I never went back).

There's also the caveat of people setting their "DAC is" to something higher than 16 bits (which would be the most logical if the DAC "is" something else than 16 bits), while not using the digital volume, and in the mean time don't tell about the first (Russ ?). I mean, that *will* matter because the DAC is used completely different then (like you noticed the little smoother sound with the Juli@).

Last question : are you using Invert at these sensations (before 0.9u and after) ? (not that you shouldn't, but then I know which part of the code is applicable to you).

Peter,

invert is left unchecked all the time.
Thanks for the new version for me.
Actually it is strange that we (Russ and I) hear the difference where you did not intend to change anything.

Andrey

Hi All :smile:

to recap my setup here, I have a Juli@ card ( 48 samples buffer ) feeding via coax into my Sony pre-processor ( TA-E9000ES ). The Sony pre-pro is essentially digital throughout and as such I would imagine it benefits well from a higher sample rate than standard 16/44.1K.

My initial listening to ver 'U' was with Vol at 0dB and no change to the 'DAC' setting of 16/44.1k. Something had definately changed for the better in my perception though compared to ver 'T', but I'm not naive enough to think that it wasn't a placebo effect in anticipation of the new version. One's listening perception's change from day to day and your mood so it was pleasing to discover that the next days listening still brought forth the improvement I had initially discovered.

Further experiments today had me playing with the Volume control on XXHE in conjunction with the Volume control on the Sony. I normally have the Sony set at -30dB readout, and that gives me an inroom volume of about 80 to 85dB peaks. I dropped the XXHE vol to -30dB and maximised the Sony vol to 0dB. Overall volume in room was still the same but there was now a slight background 'hiss'. Juggling the two controls, I have settled on -12dB on XXHE and -18dB on the Sony. This combination is very pleasing ! I should also add that I have set the 'DAC' setting to 24/96K ( which is what the Sony is capable of handling ) even though the Juli@ will output 24/192. I also found that dropping Q1 down to -2 helped tighten up the soundstage a tad.

So, for those without external DAC's, you can still experiment with the setting of each volume control, and may well find benefit's in that route.

Happy listening folks :smile:

Russ

Thank you for clarifying Russ !


Well, since the word is out anyway ... for those who don't want to get rid of their pre-amps for their own reasons *or* for those who just want to experiment ...
The whatever it is I "applied" (hehe) causes that each combination of volume of pre-amp vs. XX (with the same totalling output level I mean) will create another sound. So, there you have it. Now you can get lost in combinations. :wacko::wacko::wacko:

Although with Russ it probably is (and initially was) about a proper balance between (pre)amplifier noise and using the digital volume in combination with a wanted output level, the both means of volume apply their own signature to the sound;
So far I "gave" you the opportunity to go over the hill and do it digital only, for now assuming that would be good and the best. But this is not necessarily true !
I never tried it but know I should. Otoh, I really like to get rid of the pre-amp (TVC) which is in the way for SQ reasons in general.

Ok, on to the next step. :)

Peter,

It has just occurred to me that in both of my setups I have a single core CPU so no scheme is applied.

Andrey

I am not sure but it even looks like there is more seperation between left and right.... :smile:

Hi Peter/Russ/All,

I can join Russ' nirvana now!!!

I tried them all from 16/44.1 upto 32/whatever.
And that bad feeling stayed fro all of them untill I came to 24/44.1(192) and voila it sounds without any discomfort and still better than t-7.
I am using 0dB. Don't want to try to bypass preamp for now. Although I have the option on my integrated amp.

But the idea is it sounds good again.

Edit: works only with 32 bit. and with 24 fails
Edit: In the "DAC needs" section

Andrey

PS: Will try to play with my el cheapo card tomorrow. But as I can remeber now it does not support other than 16/44.1 and the bad feeling is there.

I'm a little confused by what you are saying here, and I was just wondering if you could clarify - are you making these comparisons with the same song? I mean, you can't be, right? You can only play 16/44 when 24 and 32 are unchecked in the "DAC needs" section, right? And conversely if "DAC needs" is set to 32bits, then are you playing a 24/96 track?

No, please don't take a step backward. I don't want my 16/44.1 output to sound like 0.9t.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I am playing regular 16/44.1 cd ripped files.
What I was saying refers to settings area, "DAC is 24 bits 192.0 KHz" combobox not the track formats.

Ok, I'm lost.

:blob8: :blob8: :blob8:

Later ...

(I already changed the program, but I can put things back again, no problem :))

Peter,

For those with 16/44.1 only cards, ok namely for me (my other setup), please make that special version, which you already changed.

Thanks
Andrey

Not so fast ... :)
First I want to understand what happened whith your other setup. As far as I can tell Edward must be right ...

I vote for XX volume  :)

Indeed I used 2 -3 songs in 16/44.1 format and with these songs I went through all settings from DAC is 16/44.1 to DAC is 32/192 with DAC needs 32 bits.
And for all settings I was able to hear my 16/44.1 songs with no errors.

Now regarding that bad feeling of mine: All settings except for 24/* gave me taht bad feeling. But 24/* is just perfect.

Does this help?

Clear Andrey.

HOLD THE HORSES!!

If I try to play a 16/44.1 song and change my DAC to "needs 32bits" then I get a whole slew of messages:

-UNSUPPORTED FORMAT
-2/32/44100/352800/8
-Device (currently) does not support/allow Exclusive Use. It will not be bit perfect!
-Error number :1
-Device cannot be allocated in pre-check state

Peter, you told me "upsampling from 44.1/16 to 96/24 is not supported yet".
Then you also said "Strangely enough I can just Double to 88.2/24".

If I play 16/44.1 songs, I can no longer use "double" or "upsample", no matter what my "DAC needs" settings are.

I thought my situation was the "norm", so how can Andrey be playing 16/44.1 songs with DAC needs 32 bits??

Well, I said that a little differently of course :


So *I* have that, you don't. :) (yet)

That you cannot Double or Upsample at all, while before you obviously could, is the strange matter of ... well, I just thought of something ... !

Hehehe, I now realize that before, I set the appropriate settings to ask the DAC for its possibilities ... well, AFTER I ask that to the DAC (driver). This was a kind of quick-tweak to get that running a year ago. Today ... I do that as should, so I set it before asking the DAC. And there it gets rejected now ...
So it's my guess if I move *all* the settings to *after* asking the DAC, and let that asking be dummy 44.1/16, it would work.

I know, I'm talking to myself here, but I guess I just found the tweak to get things going while now they won't because of "bugs" in that part of Vista.

What I will do as well, is create an enumeration of what "your" soundcard will accept for playing. Just all the combinations it('s driver) doesn't reject, and report that. Can save you tons of time.

Peter

Peter

I did this too.... It play's but before playing this error come's up.... what does it mean?

Grtz.... Gerard...... :)

That you just changed the setting from more than 16 bits to 16 bits, while the system auto-unticks the either 24 or 32 which was there (the "auto" is not much clear and will change in the next version).

Peter,

This is what you said in the realease notes. What do you mean by that? Meaning the word before... Do you refer to a previous model? Do you mean by this that the music is only different when you play around the 30/24 db? (Less than 0 db)

Or am i totally wrong on this one..... :dntknw: :)

Yes. Which appears not to be true. E.g. : Version 0.9U feedback (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=375.0) ...

Ok, this all appears to be true ... With my regards to MS ...

My "analisys" functionality is finished now, and I managed to get the real merits of what Exclusive can and cannot do. That is, this function does not report anything that -as far as I can see- is not justified, but it still *may* be so that it doesn't report possibilities of the Soundcard/DAC while it actually has them. In that case there's nothing left to do that I can think of at this moment. But first let's see how (in)consistent this reporting now is opposed to what "you" think your Soundcard/DAC is capable of.

I have to finish up the code a bit, and I guess within a few hours a 0.9u-1 will be up.

Peter

Do we have to leave it at 0db?

If you Upsample, yes (0.9u-1). But maybe I don't understand the question, because what you ask for is in the Release Notes, and you can only ask because it's in there ?? haha

Btw, for UpSample this aplies. With Double you can do as you like.

Peter, All,

32 (most often) is working here... 24 (untested) still gives the error "inconsistent" The Not Supported thing becomes less depending how high i set the latency of my soundcart.

I have got Double working.... Sounds different.... But i cannot point out what it is at the moment.
upsampling i can check... But i don't know if it works... but the sound that come's from it somehow i don't like...

The higher i set the latency the less i can play and error's come up... when i set it to 88.2 i can play Double.

   :)

Can you rephrase please Gerard ?

Well as you can see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=381.msg2609#msg2609  i can set it from 44.1 to 192... When i set it to 44.1 than pic 1/88.2 gives pic 2/192 gives pic 3.

(pic 1)
Start Audio Device Analysis Exclusive Mode support
03ECFD38

    Supported : 2|16|44100|176400|4
    Supported : 2|24|44100|264600|6
    Supported : 2|32|44100|352800|8
Not supported : 2|16|48000|192000|4
Not supported : 2|24|48000|288000|6
Not supported : 2|32|48000|384000|8
Not supported : 2|16|88200|352800|4
Not supported : 2|24|88200|529200|6
Not supported : 2|32|88200|705600|8
Not supported : 2|16|96000|384000|4
Not supported : 2|24|96000|576000|6
Not supported : 2|32|96000|768000|8
Not supported : 2|16|176400|705600|4
Not supported : 2|24|176400|1058400|6
Not supported : 2|32|176400|1411200|8
Not supported : 2|16|192000|768000|4
Not supported : 2|24|192000|1152000|6
Not supported : 2|32|192000|1536000|8

(pic 2 )
Audio Device Analysis Exclusive Mode support
03ECFD38

    Supported : 2|16|44100|176400|4
    Supported : 2|24|44100|264600|6
    Supported : 2|32|44100|352800|8
    Supported : 2|16|48000|192000|4
    Supported : 2|24|48000|288000|6
    Supported : 2|32|48000|384000|8
    Supported : 2|16|88200|352800|4
    Supported : 2|24|88200|529200|6
    Supported : 2|32|88200|705600|8
Not supported : 2|16|96000|384000|4
Not supported : 2|24|96000|576000|6
Not supported : 2|32|96000|768000|8
Not supported : 2|16|176400|705600|4
Not supported : 2|24|176400|1058400|6
Not supported : 2|32|176400|1411200|8
Not supported : 2|16|192000|768000|4
Not supported : 2|24|192000|1152000|6
Not supported : 2|32|192000|1536000|8

(pic 3)
Start Audio Device Analysis Exclusive Mode support
03EDFD38

    Supported : 2|16|44100|176400|4
    Supported : 2|24|44100|264600|6
    Supported : 2|32|44100|352800|8
    Supported : 2|16|48000|192000|4
    Supported : 2|24|48000|288000|6
    Supported : 2|32|48000|384000|8
    Supported : 2|16|88200|352800|4
    Supported : 2|24|88200|529200|6
    Supported : 2|32|88200|705600|8
    Supported : 2|16|96000|384000|4
    Supported : 2|24|96000|576000|6
    Supported : 2|32|96000|768000|8
    Supported : 2|16|176400|705600|4
    Supported : 2|24|176400|1058400|6
    Supported : 2|32|176400|1411200|8
    Supported : 2|16|192000|768000|4
    Supported : 2|24|192000|1152000|6
    Supported : 2|32|192000|1536000|8

Ok, I understand. This is not related to "latency" though.
Here too (referring to a post somewhere else), I'd ignore the 24 bit possibilities. They are not real.