XXHighEnd

Lately there has been a lot of emphasize on the SQ differences between the new versions of XX. However I remind you there are also important SQ differences regarding settings of Q1.

The last 12-18 months I have preferred Q1 = -2. It gave me a very liquid and smooth sound, without adding any veil or coloration. In contrast, the +14 setting, was felt to be (a little bit) too “dry”.
However now, I feel that the -2 setting is slightly too soft sound. Too pleasant. Moving up to +4 strikes a good balance between -2 and +14.

I advice you to experiment with Q1 settings once in a while, and especially after upgrading your equipment and after upgrading to new versions of XX. Right now +4 is my winner.

your profile says 09v6a.....are you still there or?
does your rec q. set refer to 09w6 or 7?
best
leif

Yes 09v6a till now. But now I see that you and the others have moved on and are happy, so I'll try the latest version too.

9w6 is in another league!
imo
best
leif

I tried Q=+4 with 09w7 and did not hear much for a short test.
Then I upgraded to 09w8 and thought there was a clear improvement!
Details sounded very clear, instruments more seperate in space behind the speakers.
I played an album of Nynke Laverman, a frisian singer with a very distinct sound.
The frisian words are sometimes difficult to follow when you don't hear frisian everyday.
Now it was much easier to hear what she was singing about.
But... who was singing, was this really Nynke? No it could be anybody, the distinct colour of her voice was completely gone.
So back to Q=+14 and there she was again. The color of her voice replaced the abundance of detail.
I did not find the compromise yet but am very curious what this slider is doing to the sound!

As long as you can measure that all stays bit perfect, it's okay. :whistle:

I think all of this is very important thinking, but, for me the differences in going from +14 down to my usual ~ 0 area are that 14 starts to sound thick/slow/veiled and ~0 starts to sound see through/quick/alive ... I don't think I'd refer to -2 as ever too soft... too thin, or strident is what I might use on some recordings...
which brings me to this:
Over time I don't feel I've seen a post where people can agree that a specific Q1 setting is doing the same on both systems.  It seems to me that Q1 is computer/electrical/system dependent and that a certain Q1 setting on one system is going to sound different on another system.  Just saying, I think we're on our own on this one ... no collaboration possible.

I tried and liked +4 for awhile, but I'm back to 0 for now.  I do tend to move Q1 around from -2 to +4 at this point in time.

People with the same DACs should be able to find the same Q1 setting. But it still depends on the kind of music I think.
With my previous DAC I played a long time with 4, but always with classical/violins I kicked it up to 14. It was too obvious that violins were too thin at the lower levels. Otoh you could say that the lower levels (for my previous DAC) weren't good for anything, but I liked it anyway.
So I'm afraid this is personal.

I just installed the 09-x2 and was looking for the best Q1 settings. I also was using +14, but today i put +2 and I seem to like it.
Any advice for this version? :)

Edit: compared with +2 and +14, I also prefer +4 :)

Q1 at -2 doesn't work on my system, after a couple of minutes the music "blows up". Freaked me out when it happened! Q1 at 4 sounds a whole lot more dynamic then at 14. Love those steep learning curves...... ;)

Oh yes, sure it can go wrong. For sure it will at the top side; I don't think I heard anyone about the bottom side, athough ... I think I could let that flaw with a USB DAC I had once ... It just breaks up.

Prefer 14,30,30,0,0 with version 6a. 14 sound better, more "sharp" and defined.

After extensive listening this morning (AFI1 -> D70 -> Stax headphones), and using P70 transport for comparison, I'm back to -4/0/0/0/0!

There is a 'lightness' with this setting that I lose otherwise. At +4/30/30/0/0, things get 'heavy', as though the musicians are playing in treacle.

If you have this CD, listen to tracks 3 and/or 6 of 'Memoirs of a Geisha' - beautiful music, beautifully recorded. But instruments like the bass drums can drown out the ebb and flow of the music with +4/30/30/0/0. But not with -4/0/0/0/0!

I'll happily put up with the latter's 'edginess' because it allows me to follow the emotional content of the music better. (I might switch to +4/30/30/0/0 whenever I want to relax in the evening... or when I'm in the mood for really deep, heavy bass).

Mani

Nice explanation ... and rather well following the principles on it in the software ...

Btw, a bit of a pitty that you compared -4/0/0/0/0/ with +4/30/30/0/0/ so there's two variables in the equation.

If I'm allowed to put them into their elements (for what I know of it) I say :

-4 or more thinny sound than +4
0/0/0/0 is more honest sound than 30/30/0/0 (but less allows your room to play a role <-  :grazy:)


Ask me again in a year's time, and my response will be really crazy. :)

Interesting... did you try +4/0/0/0/0?

How would this work if using headphones? My normal setup is indeed with amp & speakers, but I'm just curious...


No, I didn't... but I will. I suppose my logic here was to take the current 'gold standard' (to take a phrase you first used) and compare it to the settings I've been happy with for the past few months, i.e. +4/30/30/0/0 vs. -4/0/0/0/0.

Incidentally, you'll see a change in my signature from tomorrow onwards which I'm VERY excited about - I am about to become the proud owner of a Pacific Microsonics Model 2 AD/DA... Hopefully, this will help further to evaluate the various Q settings.

Mani

Do try it :)


Nice piece of gear!
But let me know what will happen of the teac D70... :)

hehe ok
try 4 26 26 0 0 too gl.  for me, 4 30 30 0 0 doesn't sound as good... at least for now.