XXHighEnd

sigh... :scratching:

Have been using v6a so far. Downloaded W3 tonight. What the he.. happened to the sound?
The whole register doesn't expand like the older version.
The whole thing sounds closed and kind of amputated, the music doesn't "breathe". Almost like there's an dynamic limiter active. Peter, you haven't gone overboard on your "standing wave war front" ? Something is not right...

Updated my profile for the latest settings.

Using .wav 16/44 standard EAC.

Gone back to v6a for my sake.

W3 lost a whole lot of "musicality" IMO.

Have not tried the versions between v6a and W3.

My 2 cents.

I think at 0.9w-1 I anounced that the sound has become more "lean" to the sense of it being more easy to flow out of the speakers.
So yes, something has changed. But it was unintentional (I know where/what it is though).

It is true that since then I am kind of struggeling myself whether it is better or not, because it seems to have aspects that are better for sure (to my ears).

You do have the "Split file at size" at the default of 2500, right ?

I will reinstall 0.9v6 and listen for a good while, but I think I already agree ...

Have not changed any settings beyond the ones listed in my signature, no. "Split file..." thats in W3 right? Didn't change anything like that. Removed W3 now and only using v6a ATM.

Btw...having some VERY good SQ here now from v6a!  8)

V6a sound better with Double and Upsample OFF, e.q. running 16/44 vanilla.

Extremely musical and organic, involving sound here now with v6a.

And again, only using plain .wav'es. No FLAC, MP3 etc.

GOOD MORNING, btw, P!  :prankster:

Yeah, I recall you were a "double" fan ? so at last got rid of that ? hahaha


Btw, the fact that I know what changed, does not imply it will be easy to restore that in the current version. Quite impossible.
Challenge challenge challenge.

Hi,

Just wanted to chime in with a similar observation after switching to 09-w3 yesterday. It took only a couple of songs to notice that the sound is overly lean in my system and seem truncated in the low frequency response. When I first used XXHighEnd it was only slightly leaner than my other player software, but it was good in a way of providing more details, lighter flow of music while keeping a good balance and the low notes were precise and less bloated. With w3 I find the low notes to be too absent and the mid to highs in turn sound a bit to sterile to be enjoyable. I'll yet have to experiment a bit more with settings to see if changes can be made for the better, but with just transferring the settings I had with the last -v version I was using it does not sound right to me at all...

Best regards

Joerg

Hi,
Since I'm going to be working on going back and forth on SSD vs HDD, could you give v6a vs v7 a whirl... just to make sure there are no differences there.  I'm using v7 at the moment and have v6a, but don't want to change anthing but harddrives till I get a handle on things.  Still no listening until tonight peter, but making sure everything set up like on my SSD right now.

Hahaha Dave, you just pointed out to me there's a 0.9v7 as well. :heat:
Have been using 0.9-v6a tonight and hated it for lacking functionality (wow, one gets used to things quickly !).

I can safely tell you that all the changes that can influence SQ are not in 0.9v7.

LydMekk, Joerg too :  :wub:


All,

I can't emphasize more on please COMPLAIN when you have the idea that something is wrong soundwise. You for sure won't embarrass me with it, and in the end it will help yourself.
I have only two ears and two speakers, and for sure won't claim they are the absolute best.

Usually I know when something can be changed for SQ and then I announce it. Like here, from 0.9w-1 :


be extra-alert in such a case. Even if you are not sure, please share.

Peter

I have listened today to the following versions of XX v6a, v7, w1, w3..... and still I am a great fan of v7.

Johan

Well now, this is an eye-opener!

Since the start of the 'W' series of XXHE I have been enjoying the benefits of the much quicker startup and general functionality improvements, and have actually been spending a lot of time just sitting and listening to album after album for hours on end. My enjoyment has been good, not having to worry about XXHE stalling or having any occassional glitch.

When I read the start of this thread yesterday I wondered whether the sound quality really had taken a different path so this morning I plonked on 09v-6a again and fired up some 24/96 tracks of Diana Krall. I played "When I Look In Your Eyes" under 0.9w-3 firstly and everything seemed OK .... usual silky smooth tones and I was able to easily discern the tongue "clicks' in between breaths and phrases. I then played the same track under 0.9v-6a, and it was like a veil had been lifted! Soundstage had been tightened up markedly and everything had a more precise feel about it.

I tried different tracks and different albums ( all Diana Krall in 24/96 ), swapping back and forth between versions and the results were the same in my mind. 0.9v-6a simply sounded better .. no doubt about it.

So .. a lesson to be learned here. Changes in sound quality may gradually alter between versions and may not be readily apparent between one version to the next, but can be accumulative in nature. Being eager to install the latest version before having the previous versions SQ firmly embedded in the brain may not necessarily be the best way to tackle upgrades.

Hopefully Peter can revert back to the SQ of 0.9v-6a while maintaining the glitch free and ergonomics that 0.9w-3 brings.

Thanks go to LydMekk for having the patience to stick with 0.9v-6a for so long before trying the latest. The SQ derailment may have gone unnoticed if not for that.

I guess I'll be sticking with 0.9v-6a again for a while ( and will revisit 0.9v-7 ) :)

Cheers all,

Russ

You're welcome Calibrator.  :prankster:

I have not kept my eyes (ears) on the changes of XX lately, due to all the progress and benefits from Audiolense software, recently implemented in my system.

But a quick A-B test today reveals that my w1a sound very good. But v6a sounds even better. Judging from listening to a few cuts, there is a slight hardnes to the midrange of w1a. The v6a is more organic, slightly more resolved and natural. Voices has more natural dynamic shadings. v6a also draws a (slightly) bigger soundscape. There is (slightly) more dynamic "drama" in v6a than w1a.

Kudos to LydMekk for crying out. He deserves a prize, Peter!  :clapping:

Oh sure , but he already received my love !! Have to share that with my wife now. But here's another : :love:
hehe

But it is so true how important it is that at least ONE person pays attention here ! :yes:
Just look how things went overhere :

1. In order to split the large files (a longer (very legitimate) pending request from JohanZ), half of XXEngine3 had to be turned upside down.
2. Because I had to test that, from then on I started playing with 12MB file parts. I heard clicks between the parts though (never knowing when the parts exactly split *and* I hear clicks since my preamp was removed, the unity gain buffer being there instead (so, without the buffer I never heard clicks, and the clicks should be there for everybody in between tracks. Not that I ever received such a message (since that was solved many months ago)).
3. I kept on listening to the small file parts, and it was my idea that *that* caused the more "lean" sound. Lean for me : better fluent, and not exactly tinny (as how I think Joerg meant it).
4. Although I didn't like the sound much, I kept on listening to the small parts and never went back, and again kept on thinking it would be the small parts (with the explanation on memory boundaries as I expressed elsewhere).
5. Then the SSD came in; As I explain it now, that change emphasizes "accuracy". The sound now was the most bad. Indeed the mids (the base sound of cymbals) got over-expressed, and things started hissing all over, with the most bad signature of all cymbals starting to sound the same. The harmonics (singing of cymbals) disappeared (or got overwhelmed by the mid freuqencies), standing waves in the mid area (voices) started to buzz, and lastly the bass output just went wrong (too much of the wrong -> not tight and standing waves in that area again).
6. I went back to the spinning disk, and all seemed to be okay again. But mind you, all is relative and I still didn't like the sound much (the small file parts still being active).
7. Then LydMekk posted.

The rest is known.
It is exactly as Calibrator said : When the one stupid LydMekk had not been around, maybe nobody had noticed, and by the time I would have switched off the small file parts I would have been sad for not the best sound still, BUT THEN I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WHERE TO START LOOKING. Remember, there are no switches "good - better - best sound" in there. I wish it were that easy ...

Peter


PS: You read well : In the earlier versions (like 0.9v-6a) there are very tiny clicks (one "vinyl tick") between tracks. I wonder whether anybody can hear them.

Throwing my thanks out to LydMekk and those who paid attention to the version change.


This is the reason I never got around to trying the W version.  One, I was just too happy with my new system running V7 and after Peter mentioned there might be SQ differences I wanted to wait until it was a good time for me to evaluate.  Glad you all did it for me... call me lazy bones.

A quick bit of feedback between SQ from 0.9v-6a and 0.9v-7 ....

... if there is any difference between them it is far too subtle for my 'ol brain to discern  :dntknw:

Cheers,

Russ

Btw. Peter, sorry for the lateness of the report of the SQ between v6a and w3. Have been away from the audio side on my multimedia PC due to several hardware failures both this summer and during the autumn. Have changed MB 3 times during the last months and power supply once.

And didn't get around to checking these versions before now. Will try for Peters sake to report on changes faster than this from now on.

(from the other board).

Waiiiiiiit a minute ... So you use Attended to judge all ?!?!?!
(yes it's in your sig too)
Besides that, I explicitly (!) do not "produce" the sound through Attended ! or IOW I never judge that. There's no need to either, because XXHighEnd (the UI) is completely out of control (meaning : I need to do in there what I need to do).
And ok, that you shouldn't listen Attendedly because the sound is always more bad, unless it is not by coincidence ... that's up to you. :yes:

But now things get interesting ... or confusing ...
The most obviously (to by curled brain) this is the exact reason why you heard the difference so clear while others did not.
Indirectly there was one other pertson who heard the difference so clear : me.
Now what can we derive from both situations (perhaps) :

It was my idea that the SSD emphasized whatever is going on in there;
A bit depending on what you heard vs. what others perceived with Unattended, it looks like XXHighEnd emphasizes just the same ?
And I think it could ... (but out of my control so far).

It might well be that the base nature of the sound indeed can be emphasized, which is - to my ideas - something very different from the sound in the base just being wrong or right. So, we have a motor and a booster (or a turbo). Hmm ...

Of course nobody judged the difference between your 0.9v-6a and 0.9w-3 Attendedly, but what about you judging the difference Unattendedly and try to bind some values on that, which will be relative to Attended ? One never knows what comes from that and for me and all it might lead to another chapter of SQ someday ...


Btw, in the mean time I am working on twisting XXEngine3 upside down, which is not so easy. But also I hope I am not doing this for nothing. Why ?

If you read the above once more, you can also read that in the context of XXHighEnd influencing XXEngine3, which happens at startup of Engine#3 but stays ...
Mind you, I have good indications this is so (or something similar is happening), which already may be so because of the memory is organized differently which may stick by itself when XXHighEnd closes (this is about the stupid "managed code" .NET problem of not being able to influence the memory management directly).

I know have the feeling that instead of adjusting XXEngine3, I must look/test in other directions first ...

WOW, based on my previous post I applied some tweaks, and after a half album of listening I think it works. Just 0.9w-3.

I'll try to make the tweaks formal, have a night of listening, and if it keeps on working I'll upload that here.

I did my listening test in UnAttended. (I've used UnAttended for several months, because it taxes my PC less and because I didn't notice much SQ difference). Also I use Q1 = -2. As pointed out in my listening report above, I prefer V6a, but still thinks W3 is very good. I found the diferences to be "not so big". I could have lived happily with W3, in other words.

-Maybe Attended playback magnifies the differences (as Peter is sugesting)?

Another point: I prefer Q1 = -2. I think the difference between -2 and +14 is 'somewhat' similar to the difference between V6a and W3. (-2 is more organic/"natural". +14 has a certain dryness, which I don't favour. In my system, that is of course. -These kind of differences are quite small, so system matching also counts of course, when judging the final SQ).

I wanted to post this yesterday, but I wanted another night of listening.
I now did ...

For those who want to judge the difference between 0.9v-6a (or 0.9v-7 for that matter) and 0.9-w3, please try this :

- Set split file at size (MB) at 700 (minimum);
- UNtick Start Engine3 during conversion;

and


... and this is honestly of which I saw the merits just now :

- Set Q1 at 14. So, not specifically because of the above, but because it was my finding (too).

Now again : what is the difference ?
You don't need a tedious A-B, but just judge those settings.
It might help me with which direction to choose in the softare ...

Thanks,
Peter

Nobody ?

Three nights further I don't want to change anything ...
This means, with the above given parameters all just sounds fine to me.

This also means that with the Split file at size at e.g. 12MB which I was using and/or with the checkbox Start Engine3 during conversion ticked, things go wrong.

At this moment I will change nothing, expect ticking the last mentioned checkbox and listen again a couple of nights ...

Peter

Sorry Peter,
I've still got v7.  With my wav/cue file averaging 500 mb, is there an advantage to me trying W?  I've been just messing around here today and haven't started really listening, just background.  Is there a reason I should try W with my single files? or should I try some split albums and that's where I might hear a difference... will I have to then change settings back and forth?

these are the tweaks you speak of?
" Set split file at size (MB) at 700 (minimum);
- UNtick Start Engine3 during conversion;"

Yes Dave, at compromising my settings you still will be perceiving a technical difference;

Before your whole cue file album would be read into memory, whereas now (say 0.9w-3) only the track asked for is read into memory.

I recall from somewhere that you -being the chairman of the Cue File Brigade- were waiting for such a thing.

For anyone's interest : it took me a day or so to remap the virtual new memory management to something useable *IF* it had to change. This was the design only, and nothing about real programming yet.

I really have the sense that if it's done without real reason it can only destroy things after all the hard work ... and things just are working right now.

Concluded a bit : I may have fallen in my own pitfall to keep on testing the very small file part sizes, which didn't work out, but which also are not much different from the normal players around. Hmm ...

As said, one thing though : XXHighEnd allowing to start playback before everything has been prepared (like conversions and some more small (!) stuff) may just be another cause. I will test this the next couple of days.

I really don't think anything prevents you from just using 0.9w-3. The only thing might be a beneficial SQ improvement which I recognized myself at going from the last v version to the first w version. Just start with the Split file size at some maximum size (700 being "useful") and untick the Start Eninge3 during conversion to be safe.

Don't AB, but please tell me when it doesn't sound right. I'll listen to ya.
Peter

Ok Peter, have A/Bed Attended and UnAttended with version v6a as you requested over.

In UnAtt the bass is leaner, but the resolution of the whole register is higher. The sound seems to take a step further away from the listener in distance. The soundstage seems a little "lower" in height (unsure). Possible to play with higher volume without "hardness" than with Att.

In Att the bass is deeper and more forcefull and I seem to hear a little more dynamics generally, but the whole recital has lower resolution than UnAtt playback. The sound steps a little closer towards the listener than with UnAtt over. More "surround". Some times the volume have to be lowered as it seems on the edge of some unconscious "hardness" in this modus.

Same two songs, 16/44 WAV, EAC. Clannad, Ri Na Cruinne and also Jamie Cullum, What a difference a day made.

Settings as in profile.

I call'em as I hear'em, some of these differences is not BIG but they're there.

LydMekk (with the Golden Ears) signing off for the night...  :prankster:

cr*p...  :)

UnAttended is ADDICTIVE! Can understand why you say you only auditions in this mode Peter. But, maybe missing some in macrodynamics maybe as mentioned above?

I think the heightened resolution is what's doing the addictive part actually.

I tried to enable my Roomcorrection option on my prosessor now. In the Lexicon it corrects up to 250hz. It has not been very profitable to enable this with music before when playing attended. Then it created an extra "edge" and dryness/hardness to things. Now, together with UnAttended from the source the whole ting gets much more "right".

sh*t, this is more confusing than selecting boxy CD-players...  ;) the extended possibilities we have with all the different settings in XX and their minute contributions makes A/B-ing DIFFICULT, to say the least...but interesting!  :prankster:

EDIT: But, maybe better without the RC...must listen more to say for sure.

Btw., whats with the parental text filter the site has going?

ok, but i don't think you'll like what i have to say....

I finally loaded up w3 (had some grr problems of it only starting in demo mode after writing over my sentimental ver D ... so deleted and wrote it over V7...no demo mode problems... what's with that... anyway,,, also can't start ver D .. just for fun tried, but can't what's with taht... i digress....)

All settings the same as V7 (using Q1 0 and scheme 4 lately, volume at 0) and kept it at 700 and untick start eng 3....
right away and I mean right away, it sounded like Poopoo.  kinda hurt even and soundstage was off, like phase wrong.  I shut it off.... went over and checked the size of the Pinback - Autumn of the Seraphs album (rock I'm familiar with and buried vocals which help me judge) for it's size... less than 500 mb... so I change the 700 to 500... that's a little better... went back to 700, hmm seems better than before, but I'll stick to the 500... played a bit more, still kinda poopooish... Went back to V7, and I like it like that. Went back and forth with 3 albums, and rebooting a couple times to make sure things weren't "sticking".    Sorry.. very preliminary and I really should test more tomorrow and possibly change settings Q1? scheme? to see if I can make w3 fit... I've only listened to 3 different albums 3 different songs to get this impression.  W3 seems more glarey, soundstage not as locked in, thinner not as robust... wanted to turn it down, compared to v7.  Kinda late, I'm not very relaxed, and maybe need some more time with it.  K?  But, first blush was not good,,,, like I said 500 seems better and should give that more of a listen, but right off the bat at 700 first few notes did not leave a favorable impression.

Oh Dave, I forgot to mention it (once more). My Q1 needs to be at 14 or something like that ...

But nah, I will change the stuff back to how it was (but again, it is difficult).

Anyway, LydMekk is out of the way. Bwahahaha.

Thanks a lot Dave.
Peter

Hey!  :(

"Out of the way" ? NEVER!  :)

Peter peter peter wait

I have to go to bed.  But, after a few sips of whiskey, I'm not sure now and need more time.  I moved the Q1 to 4 and changed the scheme to 3 and that seemed to help quite a bit.  I also turned down my volume a bit... I know that's supposed to not be a good sign, but I only turned down my the upper volumes on the xover to get a better balance.  Still preliminary, but W3 seems very lively in the upper mids, something that going to Q1 14 may help quite a bit and end up being better... dunno yet. Need more time which I don't have tonight.  Changing the scheme also helped... scheme 4 moves thing forward which I liked with v7, but was too much at Q1 0 for W3, so scheme 3 worked better...

I may still like V7 better, but I need more time now.  There was a liveliness, even more clear (dang is that possible... too clear? stripped?) to W3,...I need some more time with it Peter... and ya, with the new versions, the Q1 and scheme settings are very obvious in changing the character of the player.  Gotta go to bed, but hold them horses, unless you want to work on stuff ,,, dunno

Last thoughts were that W3 the upper mids were jumping out a bit, but sounded better when I turned down the high vol on the xover... may sound best after a bit more tweaking? dunno yet Peter.  I'll listen tomorrow and will have more time come tues evening too.

During the bad times I encountered the past weeks, I many times though of turning down my highs. But I know that would be a wrong thing to do, so I did not.
Same as that I wanted to turn down the bass. Didn't do that either.
I would be a wrong way of tweaking, knowing that these things have been good "always".

Right now the only thing which may come to mind is that the bass is not as tight as it can be. I'm sure this is caused by the high Q1 (it is just the nature of it).


I will do it. It gives me the better feeling, and once and for all I will have worked around stupid .NET memory management. :yes:

Hahaha, I installed that right in the beginning (May 2007 I think) being afraid of people shouting at me all over. :dancing:

I guess it can go with such a bunch of nice people ...

I am sorry I cannot participate in this AB evaluation due to newborn baby and busy at work. But all I can say is that my system never has sounded as good as it does now. (See my signature settings). Depending on the recording, the highs can be silky-smooth, extremely high resolution/lots of low level information accross all octaves, the soundstage can be extremely big, the bass so tight and deep that it shakes my whole house, micro- and macro dynamics can be frightly real, and I can play extremely loud without listening fatigue. Yesterday I had a critical listening session with a friend, a very critical listener, and he was in awe. Spellbounded, by the SQ.

I guess the key features here are: : UnAttended * V6a * Q1=-2
(Also I have all software on SS memory, and there are no USB interface in use).

So whatever you do, Peter, don't move away from this direction!

G'day Peter,

I finally found some time to devote to more A/B'ing using your suggestions from above.

I had reverted to 0.9v-7 and have been using it for a week now so I have a pretty good feel as to its SQ. I tried 0.9w-3 with your settings ( split size of 700MB and unticked Start Engine ) and started up some Diana Krall. It still lacks the sparkle of the earlier version to my mind. Particularly noticeable for the cymbals .. they don't sound as metallic. Now, this was using Q1 at -3. When I tried at again at +14 is was even more mellow and laid back, which isn't the way I enjoy my muusic. I like to hear every nuance and detail available.

I also noted that using a split size of 700MB resulted in a track stopping before the end and the next track starting up. When I used 0.9w-3 a week or so ago I used a size of 1024MB and didn't have that issue. I was also using the Start Engine3  during conversion option so perhaps that is the reason.

Hope that has given you a better feel for what we are hearing, and hopefully mimics your findings to a certain extent.

Cheers,

Russ

Thanks very much Russ. I hope to have it ready soon.

Tonight I've spent time with W3 exclusively, and now that I've found some settings that I can work around I'm going to listen to it for awhile before going back to V7.  Very important for me was moving the Q1 up from -2 or 0 to 11 - 13 (for now).  I'm going back and forth between scheme 3 and scheme 4.  I think what also helped was moving from split file at 700 to split file at 425 (don't know how that would help the SQ, but I think it did for me) .... If I understand it right, that would keep the splitting of even a very large single album to just one split?  Anyway, after I get myself attached to this player, that's sounding very good tonight for me, I'll try going back to V7 in a few days.  Of course I leave unticked start eng 3 during conversion... are we not audiophools?  I never understood needing things to start that fast?  or is it just my fast computer...vroom vroom ... I already have to run back to the listening seat to get there before the music starts.  If you want slow start ups, I remember slow,,, that would be my SCD-1... XXHE starts quick enough.  What I'm trying to say is, I wouldn't even have the start eng 3 during conversion feature if it messes with the SQ.  Always play unattended too. ramblerambleramble

The size of the split shouldn't really matter, as long as it is not too small. So, 300 or 400 or 600MB it all doesn't matter (and most tracks fit within that anyway).

What does matter, is the clicks in between the splits (which are there at track boundaries just the same). So, I don't know what system I have, but I just hear them all the time. Just built in some "leds" in the software in order to show where I think they come from (which was confirmed by now), and tonight I *WILL* get it out of the way. Getting crazy of it, and I just don't know why it happens (at knowing *where* it happens).
The upside is that it is easily repeateable, and happens after 30 seconds or so of playing. This is different from when I worked on this before for such a long time (last April), when it was not repeatable (and the ticks were louder).

Note :
You may just as well forget about the "Start immediate" checkbox (hence you can have it ticked), because it was a theory I had that it could differ. But I don't think this was confirmed.
Kind of importantish : at UNticking this checkbox, tracks regulalry will play double, and after that playback stops. I noticed this before (and mentioned it somewhere) but it seems that this is caused by this checkbox being unticked (never noticed it otherwise). How this is possible anyway is another matter, and so far I can't find the cause.

Found it indeed. Solved it for myself, although not yet in the way it should for general purpose. :heat:

Still kinda in a quandary about this.  I've stayed with W3 for a couple days now and went back and forth between V7 and W3 today.  Wasn't I just saying how unveiled V7 was, yet W3 seems more so.  But, have I reached the limits of my system? I feel like I hear more SSSSSSSSSibilance on things, distortion even? When I move back to V7 it sounds like I've turned down the volume, it sounds more relaxed, but veiled compared to W3. I relax more with V7... but on the other hand, W3 sounds exciting, maybe even more a window into the recording, but also a bit uneven, stuff jumping out in the upper mids? I've gone back and forth on dynamics; I don't think V7 is less dynamic, but maybe?  Lyric intelligibility is outstanding for both, but better? for W3 ... but I can play V7 louder, sometimes I think W3 hurts my ear and not of the right phase.... Q1 question?  I've stayed on 11 for W3, (0 for V7).... but there are a lot more numbers I guess I should explore...
I feel like I'm just throwing stuff out here... it's hard for me to evaluate right now for some reason. V7 more organic, greater depth of soundstage.  W3 even more see through, greater extension of upper mid highs (cymbals), but flatter soundstage... but get the feeling like my tweeters can't handle some things? or W3 not right for me. sigh... should take more time, but V7 is so comfortable and good to listen to with the music I listen to.  It has helped staying with W3 exclusively for the last few days, and I'll give it some more time, like I just need to find right Q1/scheme for it, like I feel I have for V7.
...
I really think I need to have Peter's DAC in order to evaluate this properly hehe

Hahaha, although you can very well be right on this, I have lost all my references. :cry:
Must learn again to listen to music too. I mean, typical lady jazz singers like Diana Krall or Barb Jungr didn't do all that much to me before. But now I just can't switch them off because of those basses used so profoundly. I said "used", and although Diana Krall rather heavily "used" it before, it now merely carries the music. But hey, isn't that always when such a bass is used ? well, maybe it wasn't through loudspeakers ...

The interest for (and of) the bass makes it a very tough job to listen to the other elements.

Anyway, the "ticks" as decribed earlier are completely solved now, and also I have a version of which I'm sure it sounds different. I must leave it to you guys though to interpret it. :sorry:
Later today ...