XXHighEnd

Hi,

I have too few listening hours to try out many things, but yesteray I thought of something which is related to an anti-jitter theory and that it could be applied with the new sliders. So I did, and I perceived an enormous difference.
Now, I don't want to placebo anyone with this, but those interested, could you try as follows :

- Leave Q1 as how you are used to it. Set Q2, 3, 4, 5 to 0.
- Find a piano (wing) recording. Classical is better than Jazz. Jazz is allowed, but it should be late night piano.
- Listen to it and try to concentrate on all the aspects of the piano/wing.
- After listening, set Q2 and Q3 to 30 (maximum). Let Q4 and Q5 be at 0 !!
- Listen again. Apply this A-B only one time !

Please tell what you heard for a difference. Possibly you don't hear a difference, but usually listening to something a second time in a row brings some difference in perceivement anyhow. So if you are not sure, please express it anyway (if anything, then ...).

So, the only thing I suggest is that there is a difference. I don't say what;
The first who comes up with something, may placebo the others, although you guys are bad in letting yourselves placebo. But still.
If the first one expresses the same as what I found, we have an application. :)
If more people express different things, it's probably nothing.

If you read this for the first time and want to join this experiment open mindedly, don't read the newer posts yet ! IOW, don't let mr. Placebo come in. Do the test, set your mind, and reply. After that you can of course read what others found. I've added some space below this post, helping you at being strong in not reading other's responses yet. :)

Peter



























:yes:

hello P
tried your receipe:
went doewn to 17 on both 2 and 3 and it cleaned up the midbass!
q1=4
q2=17
q3=17
q4=0
q5=0

and these are the votes from the norwegian jury 8)

well done  :clapping:
best
Leif

just have to add the following comment:
I have a very serious vinyl rigg with basis ovation fed by a pure cycle ac re-generator,airtangent reference remotecontrolled
airbearing straight-tracking arm with lyra titan i cartridge fed to a lyra erodion x-former and then to a thorsten loesch/borderpatrol  75kg lcr riaa/tvc and your xx-player is gaining grounds, if not quite there yet,but close
congrat!

try to get hold of this album and get a grip on real brass dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Ambassadors
best
Leif

Beethovan - Ivan Moravec - Piano Sonatas Vol 2
Sonata No. 23 1st movement
(A)  Q1 4 Q2345 @ 0  vs  (B)  Q1 4 Q2 30 Q3 30 Q4 0 Q5 0
In comparison:
(A) was laid back; (B) was moved forward
(A) less detail; (B) more detail  [could better hear his "humming" on (B) ... is that a good thing? hehe; (B) highs were more clangy ,  lows more robust and congealed
(A) notes more distinct from each other; (B) notes melded more less distinct but began to hear this as more realistic as he hammers away at lots of lows.  This music gets very complex fast with lots of banging on the keyboard... (A) was more laid back, less full; (B) was more robust, more powerful.  I think at first I liked (A) better, then after listening to (B) I went back to (A) and found I missed the complex harmonics of (B)....I was sitting closer to the piano in (B).

btw, I tried the settings I had been listening to
4,5,1,0,2
and found it didn't work as well for this realistic classical piano as either A or B ... it was ok I guess though, only listened a little to my settings at the end of this session.

k so I did this your way, very brief, one song, dunno if it will hold up over time, but I'll be listening to (B) for awhile with other music too ... thoughts are still running through my head about it as I think,,, if something else pops up I'll modify this.

Would also like help with this notion.
Using 4 30 30 0 0
I've found today that selecting "invert" chk box is probably sounding better with these Q settings.  Need to try it with that same piano piece and should do it with Qs just at 4 0 0 0 0 to see,... but with 3 other recordings I've played with I thought it locked the image in better/centered and pushing out more not sucking.

edit
night night
just spent a very very enjoyable evening of listening to 4 30 30 0 0  plus invert on a variety of music.

Ok ... I guess I expected somewhat more responses. Did you all not try ? or didn't you perceive any differences ?
Anyway, this is what happened to me the day I tried it first (4,30,30,0,0) :

My piano, iow the one I was particularly listening to, sounded rather dry. Nothing wrong with it, and like with pulling bass strings harder or less hard, this can be a matter  of the room the piano was played in during recording, the distance of the mike, how many there are, and maybe more things.

In between the lines I must tell about an "experience" I had more often, and which may be a commonly known phenomenon (although I didn't really hear of it) :
At earlier stages of this "PC-player" development (it may have been Foobar times) it may once in a while (sure not often) happen that things sounded very spacious. "Spacious" should better be translated to hall. This by itself is dedicated to micro data that works out, and which very easily does not work out at all.
Once this is happening to you occasionally, it will be very profound, and when it occurs to you ("hey, what happened ?!") you will recall it for a next time at running the same album/track, and then you will be very surely noticing it again, but then because all the hall has gone again.
I myself dedicate this to properties of the mains, or maybe other influencing things (could be air temperature ... think of airspeed and the micro data just working out vs. just not working out).

I just referred to earlier days, because back then SQ was not much consistent, and today these kind of things don't happen to me anymore. It is always including that hall or it is not, I don't know, and satisfied with the SQ I am anyway.

Of course you have recognized that this "micro data" will be influenced by jitter just the same, although it may be jitter occurring in a special band of the audio spectrum. I don't know.

As said in the first post, for me it was no coincidence to move those two sliders to their 30 position. I recall a very important new and fresh definition my friend Carlos put forward about jitter, but which I like to keep a secret for now. It was about jitter treatment, and I suddenly thought that special treatment had never been implemented yet, but those two sliders at their 30 position would just do that.. So I did ...

On a side note I must tell that by now all may be moot because what I perceive is not what the two trying it out with "some result" did (thanks Leif and Dave !). Although you may afterall, reading my perceivements;

Back to the piano, I was shocked what happened to it; Suddenly it was in a way larger room, and suddenly it seemed that it was played with the sustain pedal pressed always. Also keep in mind my remark on how it sounded before, which I called "dry", which would just be about the damping pedal. The difference was so huge that you immediately start to think "can this be right ?".

After this first album I have played many more by now, and everything keeps on sounding the same : an enormous hall around everything.
Btw, while this could be described as "spacious" I think this is a wrong description, because I would dedicate that to "space in between instruments", "with air in between them". And this is exactly not what I mean. Rather the opposite ...

Assuming I am not making this up, and all really is sauced by all this hall, I my wonder whether this can be overdone somehow;
I am not sure, but it may be too much of it. Too much hall means less good separation (!). But then how to create hall which would not be there ?

Thinking about it, this must be about things just being better audible. Similar to : "the better SQ gets, the more you can hear oscillating amplifiers" (this really is true ... somehow). So, what about the one mike meant for the acousic guitar capturing the voice of the singer as well (unintended), and which now has become audible and will express as hall (because of the farther distance and possible reflections which will be profound because of the larger distance).

To make a long story short : this 4,30,30,0,0 setting has an enormous impact on my system. It is just sounds totally different because of it.
Dave, indeed I have the perception that Invert should be on. Tried that on one track yesterday, and the stage became so much more narrow because of it, that I switched it back to normal again. But :
a. Invert seemed to sound better;
b. I never perceived a difference in width because of Invert/Normal. Odd.

I never tried any other setting (like Leif's lower 17,17), but in case we find that 30,30 is the best, note that I can make it easily 100,100. This is not *that* easy, because at that levels it will start to conflict with Q4 and Q5 when used.

Leif, Dave, (anyone), if you can make some additional sense out of this, please spit it out.
And guys, keep in mind, this is not only about learning "what" influences, but also whether it may work out the same on everybody's system (like Q1 tends to do).

Peter


PS:


Hehe Leif ... On this matter, don't forget what I said about your Buffalo ... "never heard so much vinyl from digital in my life". :yes:
:offtopic: But may I ask, what re-generator do you use ?

Had some time to try it out playing loud.
After some back and forth I come to Q1 still 14, Q2345 all 15.
This way some hardness was removed which made listening uncomfortable (more like my vinyl now which is very comfortable but less dynamic (working on it!))
and at the sametime it sounds more spacious and full of colour and detail.
But changing 5 sliders and finding the optimum feels a little bit frightening especially when you don't have any idea what your doing and
if your not making some artificial changes which brings you farther from the original?? (like everything 30 sounds just weird)

My 15 cents for today.

listing to 30,30,8,6

for now

hello P
I use PURE CYCLE by BEN DUNCAN in UK
best
Leif

PS trying to find what you said about running the xx as admin,but I cannot find it and I get reminded of it every time I start xx-player
even though I am pc admin    ???????????????????????????

Hi Leif,

The most simple way you see below. Rightclick on your XX icon and choose Properties. Then go to the "compatibilty" tab, and look where the mouse arrow points. In my case this is disabled because I arranged for it at the higher level (UAC).
As long as you keep starting the same XXHighEnd version with the same icon you don't need to do anything. But change either, and you must set that again (tick the checkbox at the mouse arrow).

Note : The fact that you are PC Admin doesn't do anything for Vista.
Peter


Edit : Can't find anything really on that Pure Cycle thing. This is DIY only, right ? And is it for turntables only ?

 :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:
Finally today I had time to listen seriously to my system for a couple of hours. The 0.9w-9b is the best version so far. With a large margin. It is incredible pure, detailed and natural sounding. It brings me closer to the recording event. I hear new details in old favourite recordings. More inner details on various instruments, more breathing noise from voices, more acoustic space (if it's on the recording). The funny thing is that I can play MUCH higher now, than before. About 5-10dB higher playback level without listening fatigue. It shines both on simple recordings and complex music. In fact I have never heard complex recordings sounding so uncoloured. Massed strings, lot's of horns, whatever I play, it doesn't sound hard or edgy, -the separation and resolving of tone, timbers and colours is incredible. (Finally I don't have to regret not buying into expensive vinyl anymore. He-he).

The bass deserves special mentioning: It's so deep, dry and detailed! I think it uncovers a new level of sub-bass information.

Q settings: Today I was lost into the music. Couldn't use my dearly time on A-B testing of Q settings. Sorry about that. I started to use 04/30/30/00/00. But also likes 14/30/30/00/00 a lot.

Congratulations with 0.9w-9b, Peter. You are a genius! :thankyou:

thxs for admin tip
the pure cycle is by ben duncan and his whole series is sold by the hifinews & record web shop
found it!
http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/pureseries.htm
best
Leif

here´s the details
http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/PCYFLY.html
best
Leif

Hiyall!!!
I've been very busy, and when I'm not, I'm listening to music.  I can't pull myself away. I'm still using 0.9w-9b; haven't tried newest sorry.  I'm still using 4 30 30 0 0 plus Invert and have not found a need to pull away from this (I don't want to mess with Q4 Q5 yet).  I will start exploring sometime, but I just want to enjoy this "best ever" feeling I'm having right now.  I agree completely with Pedal, and if you read my brief initial post here you'll see I agree with your post Peter right above.  I've tried moving Q2 Q3 down (17 on up trying invert/noninvert), but didn't care for it anywhere near as much as right up to 30 30 plus invert.  Thanks for suggestion of using piano ... really helps to tell if you're moving in the right direction.
As you can tell from my first post, I thought the soundstage moved forward and was more full with 4 30 30 0 0, but something told me to try invert... imagine my surprise when I found invert moved things more forward still and locked in the image more!  It's not like I thought things were "sucking" when invert was off, but with it ticked, it just sounds better.  Don't get me wrong, I still get a very full front to back soundstage, but the images are more solid and detailed and much more in the room than something hazy floating in the back of the soundstage like I get with 4 0 0 0 0.  With 4 30 30 0 0 the bass is as powerful, tuneful as I've ever heard... I like it, it seems very phasure.  Lyric intelligibility is as top notch as I've ever heard ... background/buried voices have moved forward and can be heard with a clarity I've never heard.

Look at these two quotes Peter and I think this is what I was trying to say in my first brief listen post.  In your first quote you're saying the room became larger and could hear more pedal... this is me trying to say soundstage came forward with more solid detail.  When things become dry in a system too, they move back in the soundstage and become wispy, not solid.
 In your second quote you say "spacious" is the wrong word... yes for me things became "more", larger yes, but images of instruments melded together in a natural way.  I think it is a fallacy of some peoples soundstages that they have little bubbles of instruments and they think it is good they can point to this instrument playing here and this instrument playing there....  When I go to a string quartet live it can be very hard to point exactly to it within the ensemble ... they play and mesh together while still retaining detail... this is what I'm hearing better with 4 30 30 0 0 ... having to write quick as I have to head out, but hope I'm putting in words the great things I'm hearing.

btw
pedal says
"...it doesn't sound hard or edgy..."
This is big for me ... I was blaming my system, but I'm now wondering if XXHE V, early W versions were causing a hardening in my system.  Things are sounding much better now.

Dave,

At reading back your original post now, I indeed agree you expressed things rather similar to mine. I didn't read it like that the first time. So there must be some truth in it.


Only now I realize I have been suffering from the same. I must say that it didn't disturb me much before, but my wife started to complain ("isn't that too loud ?") and a visitor listening before and after the 30,30,0,0 made the remark afterwards that the other day (before the 30,30,0,0 was in) he didn't like it much.
Right now indeed it is so that the upper limit for volume seems to have vanished. Pedal's remark too.

So I guess we have something to focus on. Besides that (in fact more important I think) I could reason out in advance of doing it that it should work out for the better. Now just give us a year more ... :)

Hey, that was what you said a year ago...  :prankster:

Never ending story ... 8)

and

---

Hi Leif,

My visitors I talked about (you know, Visitor A and Visitor B) at some stage made the remark that the piano (wing) was dry. It was an explicit remark. So I stuffed in the 4,30,30,0,0 which before that was at 4,0,0,0,0. Within 10 seconds their remark was "too much !" and "can it be down to one third of this ?".

So I guess it really works !

I just now turned it down to 4,17,17,0,0 and at first glance this gives a better balance. 30,30 seems over the top indeed ...

Thanks !
Peter

tried again today in the new version and it still counts!
best
Leif

I tried going down again (from the 30 30s) and tried to listen to 24 24 for awhile (invert and non-invert).  Went down to 17 17 and stayed there for awhile (invert and non-invert).  I am still on the last version: 9W-9b.  I still like the fullness, soundstage, highs purity, lack of leaness, lack of digital sound/jitter? (finding this to be big) ... of 4 30 30 0 0 plus invert settings.  Peter, did you let your guests get used to this setting?  invert/non-invert? It is a big change (maybe threw them at first), and in some respects doesn't sound "audiophile"/typical stereo to me (I like more of a wall of sound, rather than pinpoint imaging; 4 30 30 0 0 moves more toward a wall of sound, still great imaging in my book, but...), but it does sound more live to me.  I admit it may be my speakers which have the tweeters running flat out (all six) and that between the midbass & low-mids can sound lean (taken care of with 4 30 30 0 0 invert)...or maybe just my dac likes it?
But even going down to just 24 24 seemed to take away some magic focus/better phase, and melded realism the system exhibits at 30 30.  Plus I really felt pulling it down brought some digititis back...this was one night of listening... things change, I'll listen again after changing to the X series, but it's hard to pull away from the great sound I FEEL I'm getting now.

IMO this is true. Some sibilance in the highs as it occurred to me yesterday right after changing it (to 17,17). But the bass seemed to change for the better.
Not sure ...


No, not really. We compared DACs, and did not get into "at what setting which DAC may sound best". And since I'm not done with these settings myself ... :dancing:

We didn't have time. My guts, I prefer it disabled.

Tried Leifs settings 4,17,17,0,0 and yes it got a little "clearer", removes some hash? Dunno. Too late for more testing tonight.

As comp. to 14,0,0,0,0.

Ok, some more testing, better at my place ATM: 4,30,30,17,17.

More fullness, not just etched "pictures".

Sounds natural, good bass etc.

Tested with Jennifer Warnes The Well album.

Hi
I really have wanted to make sure I had a handle on 4 30 30 0 0 before trying Q4 q5
Just want to see if you made a good listen to Q4 Q5 @ 0 0 before playing with them at 17 17 ... I've got to move into X version soon, so I want to really know W9 @ 4 30 30 0 0 before jumping, (so know more experimenting for me just yet), but I'll be really looking forward to see what Q4Q5 do.

All of these controls exibit a subtle difference,there's not "heaven or earth" differences when you operate the sliders...

Dont know if there's such a "universal truth" about these or if they may conclude to something different on each system tested, I have too little explained from Peter in detail WHAT THESE DO...easier to use them to implement any changes if we were told what they do. In DETAIL...

You read this, right ? Q Parameter Settings (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=711.0)

Didn't help much, P!  :)

They all interact is what I get out of that... LOL...
Late now, will try some more ltr.

What I got out of it was that Q4 makes Q2 influences even stronger (maybe good for me; maybe not... but I'm not ready to play with it), and Q5 looks like when you use it you could have one type of sound one moment and another type of sound another moment,,, without even changing its setting... and I'm definitely not ready for that nuthouse yet ... so for me... for a bit longer... Q4 Q5 stay at 0 0 .  Of course [Peter]..."Also, a Q5 of 0 won't help, because the resonances are inherently there."[/Peter] I may be in the nuthouse already and not even know it.

:blob8:


In that link I pretty much explained what is going on, to an audio listener. Keep in mind though that there are no references. I can't say something like "more bass" or "more tight" or "wider stage". But, I hope we are learning something from it, like the 30,30 could be dedicated to "less dry".

The elements themselves (like Q2 only) might not even do something.
HOW CAN I KNOW ?

Bwaahahahahahaha

But of course LydMekk is right, it is an in fact undoable job to play with these when you don't know in detail what they do. Well, I of course know in detail from the technical point of view. For that matter I could reason out that the 30,30 would do what it seems to do. But that really is all.

I too stick to 4/5 = 0/0 and I will get used to the sound of 2/3 = 30/30. I think I am by know, to the sense that in ABX I would be able to guess the settings always. So, it starts to be time for adding one of the others.

Btw, besides dry/hall as we have now, I expect changes in the area of flanger. Or the other way around, the steadyness of a tone. Like a nylon string can be so much steady. But it can also float around a bit (on the same recording I mean).
And vibrato. But I think this goes along with flanger.