XXHighEnd

Hi Peter,

You've done it the harshness in the high's have disappeared completely but I fear it may be a bit overdone; probably bordering on "laid back". I had to reduce Q1 from 14 to 5, switch to non invert & move the tweeters 2 mm forward. Mids are nice & warm & the bass as usual spectacular.

Arvind

Hey Arvind,

So you really and ineed *are* tweaking the time alignment, right ?

Now, maybe -just because you can precisely, did not buy such a "mechanism" without a reason and all- you can have a better judgement on this "phenomenon" besides our guessing. So, as I told a previous time, quite some amongst us "hear" that when SQ changes, this is often about phase stuff. But, I don't do anything explicitly about that, and while everything keeps on being "bit perfect" always (but don't upsample etc.) something must be changing in the phase area at least.

If the phase changes not linearly (hence more in the higher regions than in the lower) this is just important "knowledge". And remember, this is -so far- all empirical findings.
I don't ask you to sit down and listen for this explicitly etc., but you may start to learn judging it for more real merits;
I too can move the tweeter opposed to the rest, but after some initial physical measuring (starting at the coils) I never touch it ...

If I should, well, a. I wouldn't like that, b. others are not able to, but c. once we know how/when the phyisical alignment matches the best outcome (for SQ) it is something to strive for. Not that I know how to control that (what to do in order to move to which direction), but that may be a matter of "learning".

For others (background) : This is not an easy thing at all, and it is, for instance, related to the volume of bass vs. the rest which should have a fixed relation to the design of the XOver. IOW, it is illegal to change the "volume" of either, or the XOver is destroyed for its slopes. This is a typicle example of something which is *not* under my control, because although the XOver has been carefully designed, afterwards I tweak(ed) (volume relation) it for the best sound. Where this is one dimension, moving the bass vs the rest for time alignment is just another.

All IOW, we may never be able to get there for best XX output because nobody may have the absolute time alignment (and volume relation) in the first place, but if there is something to learn here, I'm all ears.

Thanks,
Peter

Well I thought this story of timealignment was far behind us, but if 2mm makes a difference I'll have to find my saw..

For the sound of Y3, it is completely dead (or just slow) like somebody put a blanket over it.
The previous version was lacking some warmth,the highs strong but listenable with my softdome's and tubes.

For listening I'll have to go back to X-xx, because there is nothing to enjoy in the music now. What was the best sounding version?

I hate to say this because the rest looks perfect to me.

My initial impressions are that 0.9y-3 has had some life sucked out of the percussion compared to 0.9-2a. Cymbals, triangles, cowbells etc. seem to have lost some of that "metallic ring" I had grown accustomed to since the start of the 'Y' versions.

I have a couple of pieces of music I use as reference that have very simple percussive content, and I've gone back and forth between these last two versions many times this evening, and discounting Mr Placebo, I still prefer the dynamics and excitement that 0.9y-2a brings.

On a more positive note, the gallery issues all seem to resolved ... B.B. King etc. have now joined the rest of the ensemble.

Will continue with more comparisons tomorrow.

Cheers,

Russ

Hi GerardA,

I noticed your signature indicates you use Q2,3,4,5 settings of all 15's. If they are still current, may I suggest you try 30,30,0,0 and see if the "blanket" is removed.

One thing I discovered early on when the later Q settings were implemented, that if you had the first couple at max ( ie. 30 ) you DO NOT want to move the Q4 & 5 at all. Doing so will suck life and dynamics from the music.

Give that a try, especially with 0.9y-2a

Cheers,

Russ

:rofl:

:oops:

You never ever satisfied guys :) might try to use XXHighEnd.exe from 0.9y-2a on the 0.9y-3 version of XXEngine3. So :

Stuff the latest XXEngine3.exe (from 0.9y-3) over your old 0.9y-2a folder, use Unattended and let me know what happens.

We all know it really is XXEngine3 producing the sound. Right ?
Now, let's see ...

For those who are bothered by this : you are not upsampling and using the AA checkbox, or ?

Thanks Russ, the blanket has gone!

So I guess I have to find new settings for the Q's, any more clues?

Was this a difference between X and Y or because I did some upgrades?
Because with X I likes my settings...

hmm
I tried power cord changes the same time I went to y3 and thought the power cord stuff was the difference I was hearing... was going to go back to old powercord arraignment today to see but???  I didn't start play with phase button last night and maybe should have... I can move all three top modules of my speaker,,, ack but thought that was set right a long ass time ago.  Maybe I should try some new Q stuff too.  Also, I went from y-1d to y3 ... I liked y-1d a lot... just wasn't sure about y3 yet... I'll try to put some work into it later.  Can I stuff the exe from y-1d in?  or are there no SQ changes from y-1d to y-2a.  Glad you're getting a good laugh outta this Pete heheh  Anyway, I'm not sure yet about anything because I haven't gone back and forth... mainly fell asleep listening to music late last night... so will have to pay attention today.

I'm going to try moving Q1 from 4 to lower numbers and see how that goes... I still have Q2 Q3 at 26 ... maybe I'll try going up higher again today.

Just started listening,

No big SQ changes over here, so far (or none)

Grtz

4/0/0/0/0 always sounds the most right to me.

Correction:

I'am sorry too say,

But it sounds too laidback IMO.

Misssing that sparkle in the hights. (little boring and too easy)

Low and mids are still good

The background of the soundstage is too quiet

But people give it some time before jumping to conclussions (still beta testing here)
Sometimes its good to listen to something thats is not OK
So I'll stick to this version for a couple of days, will see!

Peter,

Did you do some listening yourself.

PLEASE DO

All the action is gone, sorry

Another dawn ... another delightful day of testing :)

With a clear and fresh mind, I have just finished another session of comparisons between 0.9y-2a and 0.9y-3 and my conclusions are still the same as last night .. that 0.9y-3 lacked that little sparkle and clarity I have been enjoying of late.

Picking up on the recent post by Peter that it's the Engine that does the SQ work ( something that we perhaps tend to overlook or forget with all these changes of versions ), I created another test folder and plonked 0.9y-3 into it, then COPIED Engine#3 from 0.9y-2(a) into it, then queued up my two standard test pieces of music ... and pressed PLAY.

Well wadda ya know .... the life had returned !

I recall in the past overriding the GUI with updated versions, but can't remember playing LEGO with the engines themselves.

Not sure of the consequences of this action in the wider scheme and whether there is some tight relationship between the engine and GUI within each release, but it's opened my ears to an alternative approach to testing. Hopefully this technique doesn't open up a can of worms .. Peter has enough hair pulling at the moment keeping track of changes across versions without the further complication of us creating hybrids.

Food for thought hopefully :)

Cheers,

Russ

Hi Gerard(A),

good to read you had some success.

My Q settings were arrived at by simply playing a couple of test tracks that are very plain in composition, but contain instruments that are readily discerned. I think it helps to keep things simple initially and tweak until you think the instruments are as close to real life as possible. My two main test pieces contain triangles, cowbells, castinets and a guitar mainly, which are articles that should be remembered reasonably well.

I also think you need to give a set of parameters time to 'invade' the subconscious over a period of time. After a number of hours you should know whether it's for the better or not, and I don't think Mr Placebo has any influence here as there is no right or wrong settings , but simply those that give you the closest feeling to reality in your environment and using your own equipment.

As a general rule I've noticed, as have some others, that the lower the Q1 parameter is set, the more precise and distinct an instrument appears to become but may be perceived as too clinical for some ears. Your DAC also needs to run comfortably at these low settings and the lower the buffer size the better ( usually ).

Happy tweaking :)

Russ

It's just occurred to me that Engine#3 changes between 0.9y-2(a) and 0.9y-3 would likely incorporate some memory manipulation recoding to cure some bugs we've noticed.

Peter, I assume you keep notation within your source code to keep track of alterations, are you able to cast light on what you might have changed to cause the effect we ( I ) am hearing between engines? I'm convinced I'm not imagining things now that i've been playing my 'hybrid' for a couple of hours now.

Ta,

Russ

Well I think it's pretty surprising that Russ and I tend to agree on settings and also on what we're hearing with these version, (and actually other versions too; must have similar tastes/systems?).  Since this morning, after reading Peter's post, I've been running both y-3 and a hybrid of y-3/engine y-2a ... my ears/system prefer the hybrid.  I've kept Q settings the same for both versions... so maybe need to start optimizing y-3 changing Qs/changing phase to see if that's what's needed.

When throwing in y-2a engine into y-3 though I lose the setting that allows me to increase/decrease memory to speed up libraries... I thought just changing the engine would only affect the sound, not the player layout.  In y-3 I have that setting at 700 ... could increasing the memory usage to speed up library upset the SQ? ... that wouldn't be worth it.
dave

I went completly back to previous version,
not the hybrid.

Think maybe, the cache is screwing up SQ.

This is BOLD to say, and I'am not sure

Its late now here and can't play loud music, so???

So ... It is as late here, and of course I tried to trick you with a hint of not to. But it didn't help and didn't work.

Something is at play here which is not consistent to my thus far thinking. At this moment I only can say this test was not without a reason, and I want to thank those who tried it; I know or feel what this is about, but now I must think ...

:sleeping:

Wait, I did the reverse of this.  I stuffed y2a engine [Edit not engine i used xxhighend.exe ... whatanidiot]into the y-3 version... hmmm.  I'll try stuffing y-3 engine into y-2a folder tonight doh.

Hmm looks like Russ did the same thing as me.  Russ... we did the 'opposite' of what peter asked.  Try plopping y-3 .exe into a y-2a folder next.

Yep, you are right.

Stupido, ;)

I already went back to 0.9y-2, so now copied 0.9y-3  Engine#3 into it. also.

The contents of zips for 0.9y-2 ( with 2a exe added shortly after ) and 0.9y-3 appear to be identical apart from the actual GUI ( XXHighEnd.exe ) and the engine#3, so it should not matter which way the files are flipped .. you will end up with the same result. I double checked that before I created the hybrid.

The more I listen to the earlier engine, the more I enjoy it and would be happy to call it a day at that. It really is fabulous here. Of course it still has the glitches of not starting always and occassionally stopping mid stream, but when it gets going ... damn .. it's just great :)

I'm experimenting with some changes to my scheme's and priorities to see if I can get it a little more reliable is starting and continued running.

Cheers,

Russ

OK ... further thoughts here ... I was trying to get the best of both worlds ... updated interface combined with what I believe to be the best engine so far, which is in fact different to what Peter suggested, which was going back to the 'broken' interface ( B.B. King issues etc ), and using the latest engine.

I'll try that shortly. Sorry for confusion!

Cheers,

Russ

EDITIT**idiot alert... been doing it all wrong here**I wouldn't bother reading through this and trying to make sense of it
"oh what a convoluted web we weave"
edit first off, with 9y2a with y-3 engine when I double click on an album in library/gallery I get an error saying 'object is in use elsewhere....'
but then, after clicking ok, it loads in playlist and I can play it. (edit ... well this looks to have 'worked' itself out... MAGIC)

I've been going back and forth between only these two frankensteins... I should have brought back in just regular y-3,,, but I haven't and now I'm wondering if it really sounds like 9y2a with y-3 engine... I'm betting it doesn't because now I'm kinda ok with 9y2a with y-3 engine.  I think I need more time listening.  It hasn't been easy tonight because of the heat & humidity which in Southern California we're not used to and that atmosphere changes the system sound anyway.
Anyway
y-3 with 9y2a engine:  I'm still leaning toward this a bit more.  Bass seems more plucky and better defined.  Highs more open and forward, better decay.  Images more focussed.  Better sense of the right phase for the settings I'm using, (I have not changed setting from what is in my sig).  more dynamic

9y2a with y-3 engine:  This sounds good too.  Without comparison I might not be obsessing.  Sometimes I think vocals are better and fuller, natural... instruments not as focused but blending together into a whole that isn't unnatural.  cymbal highs a bit subdued... not as 'even' sounding as other version... but could be phase stuff I should try to optimize. or could be I need more time listening and tired now.

I'll leave this here and come back and edit later, so look for that.

Well the footy coverage on TV has finished for the afternoon so it's back to testing :)

As Peter suggested, I replicated my 0.9y-2(a) folder and replaced the Engine#3 from the one out of 0.9y-3, and did some more A/Bing.

My conclusion .... it's the engine itself which is making the discernable difference in SQ. The GUI is simply a means to an end, and if it is having any influence, then it is minor at best and I can't pick any differences between them.

So for now, I will continue with my initial hybrid which consisted of the bug reduced GUI from 0.9y-3 combined with the Engine#3 from 0.9y-2(a).

Not sure where to progress from here. It's probably got Peter scratching his head though .. LOL

Cheers all,

Russ

Thank you all for trying, and please note that I am unaware of any changes, *except* for those who made it "worst" in the first place. "Worst", however, was just better to some, and this by itself is hard to judge for the real merits. Remember, this was caused by wrong memory useage, BUT, this by itself was -so to say- controlled by XXHighEnd.exe.

Sorry about the confusement on what to put where, which was caused by my way of implying what was going on, followed by what to put where, which seemed the other way around. It made you judge better, hopefully.

What it comes down to, is that with your using XXEngine3 with the old XXHighEnd, you prooved that ... it indeed is XXHighEnd doing it. And not the other way around as what seemed logical to you. Why ? well, because XXEngine3 just doesn't contain any changes ! :swoon:

But there is a small chance it is XXEngine3 doing it afterall, which is related to a change I overlooked at first. Thus, there *is* a change, and it really could do it; I increased the size of an array which seemed better to me for "these days", and although I would not say that this should influence sound, it can in theory.

I just removed that change (which is a change applied to 0.9y-2), so for that matter it is back to 0.9y-1d. It is in the below 09.y-3a version of XXEngine3. You should paste that over your 0.9y-3 folder.
Note that you can only see which is which by the size, and this 0.9y-3a is a little larger.

Btw, do not forget to set your Split File back to how it was before the versions producing Out of Memory errors !

For those who think the Thumbnail Cache make a difference, set that to 0.

Pray ...

gosh darn... am I ever going to get this right?
I think I was stuffing XXHighend.exe from either y-2a or y-3 into either the folder of y-2a or y-3
not
xxengine3.exe
sigh
ok I'ma go stuff what you just posted into a new folder of y-3....
right? yep that's what you posted ok here goes [from Peter "below 09.y-3a version of XXEngine3. You should paste that over your 0.9y-3
folder."]
so who knows what I was hearing yesterday.
Next topic of discussion
"Reading Comprehension
& Do I have it?"

Just to answer this question.  No  But I have not tested it for a very long time.

You should NOT use the AA checkbox. It will make things more "quiet".
But I'm serious, don't.

Ok
I did this:
...09.y-3a version of XXEngine3. You should paste that over your 0.9y-3
folder...
Just finished and put on a song in the background, sounds fine; I'll listen closer in a bit.
but
Can you tell me exactly what you'd like me to compare it to?

edit (just saw your below post... will do that for today... yea easy stuff)
I think this is what Russ left off with:
"So for now, I will continue with my initial hybrid which consisted of the bug reduced GUI from 0.9y-3 combined with the Engine#3 from 0.9y-2(a)."
so I will make this up and see if I hear differences... until I hear back from you Peter what you might want me what ver you might want me to listen against.
I've left the Thumbnail Cache at 500

To "nothing" would be the most easy. It just should sound right. Or right "again".

Things are quite confusing currently. So, if you had complaints with 0.9y-3, this may take that away.

Been listening to; The Bad Plus (a small modern jazz combo I've been enamored with); Roy Orbison (96_24, absolutely tear wrenching music); Infected Mushroom ... hehe; The Weavers 96_24 (ol stand by).  I've been having a great time NOT worrying about SQ differences and really enjoying the music.  I think that means the presentation is top notch and I really do like what I'm hearing from y-3a.  Maybe someone will want to do the back&forth dance... maybe I will with the y-1d later, but maybe not... having too much fun today.  The heat/humidity is gone today; yesterday was way too hot and too much work,,, that I messed up on anyway... I'm looking for enjoyment today and I've found it with y-3a.
btw
so people don't get lost in this thread of where to find the 9-y3a engine zip... here is the link to Peter's post of where he put it:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=907.msg7215#msg7215

Infected mushroom, he
Nice!

All fine here too, with 9-y3a (Like Peter said)
No need in getting back on forth.

Its good just good, now

 :good: :good: :good: I seem to be back on track again with SQ using the new engine. :good: :good: :good:

I did a short session of A/B'ing between my hybrid and this 0.9y-3a ( which is essentially the swap of the old engine from y-2 and this new one ), and came to the conclusion that I couldn't discern any readily apparent differences flipping from one to the other. It takes about 45 seconds or so to jump from one setup to the other, taking into account that AHK needs to close down and restart also, and as this time increases it gets harder to remember subtleties in the music you are trying to differentiate. Well it does for this 'ol brain .. LOL

So I'm happy to put this turn of events to bed and try and get consistent playback happening again.

I need to revisit those setting parameters I think as version Y's seem to warrant some changes. I'm still getting the occassional lack of music start after the GUI disappears ... sometimes I might hear nothing at all and sometimes I might hear the hint of an attempt to start, then silence. Occassionally it will cease mid album. During these moments of silence, if I Alt-X back to the GUI, then click STOP and PLAY, there seems to be a 50-50 chance it will play OK at the track it left off from.

Let me have a play for a while Peter before I trouble you any more ! It will give your hair a chance to return to normal colour also .. hehe

Cheers,

Russ

Hi Russ,

Is it so that this actually never went away ? I mean, you mentioned this before (a few weeks back), then at some stage reported all was back to normal. Although "all" was about quite some things back then, I thought you meant this one as well.

Not ?

I made a new topic for this : Playback may start with ... silence (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=910.0).