XXHighEnd

Frankly, I am a bit ambivalent towards the Q settings. I can alter them, and in turn hear sound alterations. However, I am at a loss as to what I prefer. One setting is brilliant with chamber music, another with rock, but I really can't be bothered to keep a track of the exact settings I prefer to this or the other genre.

Thus, I think the aim should be one set of settings that works well in my system and with the music I play. But this is easier said than done. So I suggest you guys post your preferred settings and other thoughts on Q settings here, for general reference and help for others. For example, what gives the most detailed sound? What gives the most organic sound? Which setting provides the most rhytmic oomph? It would be interesting to gather some opinions and see if they correlate.

I have been running -2/0/0/0/0 for a long time. A few days ago, I decided to play a bit with the Qs. (I discovered that I get an "unsupported sampe rate" error I crank Q1 above 24?). First i tried -2/30/30/0/0. This produced a more rounded sound, more "organic" and less digital if you will, but vocals suffered very much from this setting. They became duller and with less life.
Then I tried 20/30/30/0/0, which was better. The vocals were better, while maintaining the organic flow. However, timing was much worse, so this setting was out of the question.
Then I set it to 20/0/0/0/0, and compared this to -2/0/0/0/0. Hmmm. In one way, I liked the flow and smoothness of the first, whereas the latter had more detail and soundscape. I don't give a toss about detail and soundscape really, but the lower Q1 was more rhythmic and with better timing, which is immensely important to me. I would really like the organic flow of the first and the timing of the second setting here. So I tried 12/0/0/0/0, became uncertain and went back to -2/0/0/0/0.

Anyway, do you guys share my general feeling that higher Qs as a rule of thumb give a more organic sound, whereas lower Qs give a more hard and detailed sound with better soundstaging? Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Q 4/0/0/0/0 has always been my favourite. i also dont like to move Q1/4 to anything else but 0 (i call Q0 the first).
Appointment Scheme 3 - works well on dual cores.

With the new version, 9y-4, I know the top end sounded much different to me.  Better cymbals/metal for sure, but ...
well I'm not sure of the words, but maybe a lack of sparkle, high nrg kick ... or was that just a lack of distortion in the upper registers I was 'missing' that I'd grown used to.  I know I'd previously moved Q2 Q3 up to 30 (then down to 26) and inverted phase to bring some 'weight' to the notes and have kept it there for several versions,,,, so today I moved Q2 and Q3 down to 0 and went back to 'normal' phase,,, after a listen I moved Q1 up to 4 (and thought I might keep moving it up; but there it has stayed all afternoon).  Seems a little more open on top now...bass maybe not what it was last night, but I've been walking around this afternoon and need to sit for a listen

but btw,
this is not settled yet, I may go back to 3 26 26 0 0 after a period of listening to this, last night was too good, but then again,,, 4 0 0 0 0 is sounding really great; we will hear.  Definitely, having the phase switch is a big part of using the Qs.

Edit
Well I've been dancing all over the Qs tonight,,, but I seem to have fallen kinda back to 4 26 26 0 0  (Things I've tried: (2-4) (23-30) (23-30) 0 0; (2-4) 0 0 0 0 & invert vs normal on settings).  Right now, and that will change, I'm digging 4 26 26 0 0 on a recording that's very clear and lively in the top end (Submarines - Honeysuckle Weeks).  Also, sounds great on Beethoven quartets I'm playing now.

I quickly checked both 26/26 and 20/20 with Arc prediction 4x upsampling inserted and I prefer the 0/0/0/0 still.
Headphone test, will check tomorrow in the real system.

If I've understood peter right, the Qs interact with the dac you have ... so everyone may be on their own with Q settings?  For me the realism/articulation/big difference in bass with the setting 4/26/26/0/0 invert phase is the best setting still, as opposed to (2-4) 0 0 0 0, but I'll go back there again with other recordings.  I'm not even going to suppose I've explored everything with the Qs.
I also think there are phase changes going on when playing with the Qs... so always try normal/invert when you've moved your Qs... what may be right phase with one speaker/room may not be good for another.

True. But thus far (and usually) people come to the same settings, so there's something more going on perhaps. I mean, already at Q1 I wouldn't have put any money on the outcome so much being the same for everyone. But it just does, and it has "absolute merits" (like the lower the setting the better the detail, until detail starts to sound digital).

I think (think ! people preferring Q2/3/4/5 = 0 (not Q1 !) have the ability to sort out distortion better, opposed to people who like the non-zero settings. Yet again hard to explain -certainly when you don't suffer from this-, but let's say (Dave) that this is as complicated as what you experienced yourself just 24 hours ago : you can only know what distortion is when it's gone. After that you can't go back. You will always hear the distortion BUT only when it is the only one precise same distortion added again. For example, switching from OS to NOS also should bring the pile of (same) distortion, but now it is suddenly masked by the musicality of NOS. So your brain will dig it.

One last funny thing : As some of us know, the higher Q2/Q3 settings bring more hall to the sound. I like that, and I played with it for a couple of months, until I had to set it back to judge (other changes) better. I think most people like this better. Now, however (Arc Upsampling) if anything the sound got dry as sand. In the large post in the other topic I explained why, and how this just *is* better. So we might like hall, but *obviously* this will, well, hall the sound. It just smears again.

All, of course, is nothing different from room treatment. It just does the same.
... but it doesn't take away the cause ...


Additionally, and you may recall that I said it already several months ago in the Phasure NOS1 DAC topic, I started to clearly hear the "recording room" longer ago (because of the DAC which by now is the most special). So in the end, it all boils down to the same : it is getting better and better. So, I did hear the room (making my own room vanish, which is *not* decorated for music playback), but I never perceived the on stage sounds as I do with Arc Upsampling. So everything contributes, and they are all in other areas. I say it for the 1000th time : there are so many things wrong !

But give it time. And as you know, with YOUR help !

Have played a bit more with Qs in y-4. Tried SeVeReD's settings, 4/26/26/0/0, ticked "invert" and WOW, instant boogie machine! Powerful bass, smooth as hell and very musical with a great sense of timing. Now I don't dare touch anything for fear this music might go away.

It's a bit like the Friends episode in which Chandler and Joey turned on their TV one day and found they had free porn on one of the channels, leading to non-stop porn watching lest they loose the channel.

Hmmm... I didnt tick invert. Will try that too :)

Tried (on headphones, OS dac). I dont feel anything ticking invert. But 4/26 vs 4/0, keeping all the rest at 0 is interesting. The higher Q1 has a more smooth sound. I labeled it as distortion before, but now i'm not so sure. It is too hard to compare 4/0/0 vs 4/26/26, so i worked only on the Q1.

I also noticed that with Q1/2 = 0 the sound seems louder, which is not always a positive thing. The conclusion is that i'm more confused than before. I still think that Q1/2=0 produces a more natural sound, but I also think that putting 26 or such attains a positive effect on certain music.

hello
I run q1=4 q4&5=0
by varying q2 and 3 I add ambience to the room
when too high(above 20) it tends to be rudy van gelder like echo
when down towards 0 it is way too dull and dead
imo
best
Leif

Who the heck is rudy van gelder ? :evil:
:rofl:

you should know you ignorant ;)
he was one of the most famous jazz recording technicians that made e.g many of the well known SAVOY recordings etc
and his trademark was a slight echo that added ambience to the recordings.
best
Leif

Then you should listen to Lalo Schifrin's "Marquis de Sade" from 1966, recorded at Englewood Cliffs with Van Gelder. No echo there. Best recording ever, and - incidentally - best music ever as well. Only successful marriage of renaissance/baroque music with jazz. You can't get it anymore, but PM me if anyone wants it.

Sorry for OT. Listening to "The Dissection and Reconstruction of Music from the Past as Performed by the Inmates of Lalo Schifrin's Demented Ensemble as a Tribute to the Memory of the Marquis de Sade" right now on y-4, fucking brilliant.