That's a lovely white sheep, wish I could afford any color sheep myself. I guess I'll double the  instead. That should should double my listening pleasure. I'm sure even a white sheep can't do that.

Hey Pedal.

Thanks for your specifics as to listening tests and pleasures. Listing that kind of detail makes opinions so much more useful, especially if one has some of the albums, which I do.

I have a different one of the Jarrett Blue Note recordings. The one with "Autumn Leaves" and "Days of Wine and Roses." The last 10 minutes or so (it's 26" total) of "Autumn Leaves," has some great sounding percussion. Bass, drum kit and eventually the piano comes back in and is basically a one note rhythm machine. The whole section is mesmerizing and the cymbals in particular (at times) have different colors (they must be different cymbals since they're located differently in the sound stage too--I'm no cymbals expert though) than usual. At times they sound almost like bells.

I also have the Patricia Barber you mentioned. I'll have to give it a listen. And speaking of her, some of her earlier recordings are wonderful and very well recorded. "Distortion of Love," comes to mind and the one after that; I can't remember the name.

Chris

Peter, I suggest yet another stickie. Call it the "Best and ? of Peter." Gather some of your best and most interesting posts from around the web and repost them here. You can just copy and paste them.

By the way, I've seen a few of your posts and replies at Computer Audio, or whatever it's called, and I saw what you were up against. Not easy, and you do tend to answer in a meticulous fashion which makes for a lot of time spent writing and typing and in a non-native tongue to boot. I hope you're a good typist.

Also if you had all your most salient theories and thoughts re audio/music already written, you could just tell people to go to said post instead of having to rewrite things again and again.

And by the way, if anything, you are too fair about not bragging about XX. I understand that perfectly and would do the same myself, but you do go out of your way not to say anything unequivocally positive without it having been proven unequivocally. I'm just sayin. 

Chris

Hi All,
This is sort of off topic but strangely on topic at the same time. After this paragraph is a post I just wrote on another thread not having seen this thread (I decided to copy it here for convenience--it's not very long). I was sort of tuned out to the WindowsX thing, as he seemed like he was ranting for the most part (I'm not saying he was, I just didn't pay close enough attention to his posts to get any other opinion) so I didn't even know he'd been banned. But I was thinking along some of the same lines as Boleary inspired by a different situation. I think we're making it too hard on Peter (and us in the long run) to develop XX. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but still. I think things could be at least somewhat simpler and clearer and the following is an attempt at going in that direction. Any thoughts, additions, changes or just pain pooh poohing are allowed.

Please feel free to move this or whatever if it's not appropriate here.

>>>>Peter, I'm not quite sure what all you meant and if you were even replying to me, but after trying to understand what you're saying and thinking about it, one thing seems clear. We, the users of XX should use XX on a clean basic system (no registry, memory or esoteric tweaks) to have any chance of helping you understand what's going on and therefore helping us understand.

To remedy the situation (ok perhaps I'm being a bit over optimistic) I suggest another stickie, called something like "Must read for everybody and tweakers in particular."

It would say something like:
-------------------------------------------------
1. Do not ask me for help or make comments about the sound/performance of XX unless you're running it on an untweaked system.
2. If you truly feel you've discovered some wonderful thing while running XX on a tweaked system, please list every tweak you've implemented in detail and everything you're doing before and while you're using XX.
3. If you like to tweak and want help XX grow, run parallel same OS's (dual boot) one plain vanilla and the other tweaked to the gills if you like.

The reason for the above rules is that when a system is tweaked it introduces many new variables when we already have far too many. Now it makes my responses virtually worthless, as opposed to only somewhat worthless. haha. That's you laughing Peter.
-----------------------------------------------------

There are probably other things to add like what constitutes a tweak as opposed to a change in basic function, etc. Whatever, I should help some in your understanding the feedback you get and it would also help us, the forum readers since the posts would be more relevant and applicable for all of us. Also, your replies could be significantly shorter and to the point.

It might also be good to have a special area for tweaker posts so that they're not mixed with the "regular" stuff.

Just a thought that makes sense to me, hope it makes sense to you.

Chris <<<<

End of copied post. Chris

Peter, I'm not quite sure what all you meant and if you were even replying to me, but after trying to understand what you're saying and thinking about it, one thing seems clear. We, the users of XX should use XX on a clean basic system (no registry, memory or esoteric tweaks) to have any chance of helping you understand what's going on and therefore helping us understand.

To remedy the situation (ok perhaps I'm being a bit over optimistic) I suggest another stickie, called something like "Must read for everybody and tweakers in particular."

It would say something like:
-------------------------------------------------
1. Do not ask me for help or make comments about the sound/performance of XX unless you're running it on an untweaked system.
2. If you truly feel you've discovered some wonderful thing while running XX on a tweaked system, please list every tweak you've implemented in detail and everything you're doing before and while you're using XX.
3. If you like to tweak and want help XX grow, run parallel same OS's (dual boot) one plain vanilla and the other tweaked to the gills if you like.

The reason for the above rules is that when a system is tweaked it introduces many new variables when we already have far too many. Now it makes my responses virtually worthless, as opposed to only somewhat worthless. haha. That's you laughing Peter.
-----------------------------------------------------

There are probably other things to add like what constitutes a tweak as opposed to a change in basic function, etc. Whatever, I should help some in your understanding the feedback you get and it would also help us, the forum readers since the posts would be more relevant and applicable for all of us. Also, your replies could be significantly shorter and to the point.

It might also be good to have a special area for tweaker posts so that they're not mixed with the "regular" stuff.

Just a thought that makes sense to me, hope it makes sense to you.

Chris

Sorry to take so long to reply Peter. The red was a compilation of examples, an abbreviated best of, so to speak.

I think instead of giving examples (which I will find if you still want me to after this) I'll just explain a little better, by telling you what I tend to do in general life which I think is very similar and not terribly useful when giving instructions.

Whenever I come to a point where I definitely don't want to be misunderstood in some basic way, even if it is not terribly relevant to the point of what I'm saying I feel a need to clarify my true thoughts on the matter. So for example if while I'm telling you how to get "Perfect Sound" from XX, I will feel absolutely compelled to give you my philosophy on perfect sound--that it probably doesn't exist, if it did we would disagree on what it was, that it probably varies from day to day, yada yada yada.

So if you feel compelled to explain, as I sense you do (however I could be wrong, there's a language barrier after all  ) you probably know what I'm talking about now.

But whatever you think of the above, it would be really cool    to have your thoughts (philosophy of sound musically speaking) and I'll call it "As close to perfect sound as one can get without demanding an explanation from oneself as to the possibility of such a thing existing" and other related matters in a stickie somewhere in this forum. 

Chris

Hi Peter,

The following has happened several times. My current signature is valid for this issue. The system had been newly rebooted.

The music hesitates for a second or two and then continues in perfect form, sounding very good. The most recent time it happened I was listening to four tracks, total time just short of an hour. XX hesitated once during the first track about 5 - 8 minutes in, and again during the last track, maybe 10 minutes before the end. I detected no other problems, no ticks etc.

It was running unattended so I can't give you anymore details. Just thought you'd like to know.

Chris

Yes, that definitely clears it up. Thanks Peter.

Hey, I have some advice for you, if you wish to take it, that's another question.

You write many of your advice and help threads too much the way you think. I know, because I have many of the same type of thoughts. My advice, don't write most of those extra thoughts.

For instance "Well to get the best sound..." Well what means the best sound really? is it fake best? fake freshness? too real but just good? or is it just my perception on my... Don't write the red part no matter what your pen (keyboard) urges. Instead write up a real good paper that explains all your sound (reproduction, listening, acoustics, and computer audio concepts) philosophy and post it as a sticky note that is a must read. When I say must read, buyers and triers of XX must swear that they read said sticky before downloading XX.

I hope you take this in the intended spirit.  I actually really appreciate your thoughts on the "final quality" of sound (probably because I agree with them and that kind of thoughtfulness). But they might be better placed. 

Chris

Hi Eric,

What are your other settings? I'm curious because I have no trouble with an MC SFS setting of 350 (I haven't tried larger) with W7 64bit and only 4GB. I've used KS adaptive and special, with and without upsampling. (My signature isn't close to correct at the moment because of all the changes and experiments--wrong computer, dac settings etc.)

With my values I don't see any point in upgrading memory unless I'm missing something (Peter?). Also, I don't understand why you should need 8GB to get a smaller SFS than I get with 4GB. Just trying to understand this memory allocation/SFS thing. 

Chris

"Using a large SFS like 500 is NOT allowed when having 4GB of (or less) memory only (or when you have more but with a 32 bit OS)"

Peter, that doesn't say much, in fact it is confusing. What is like 500...? 499? 488? What? What is the largest SFS I can use in a 4GB 64bit W7 system without getting into any mysterious "--Because this won't be noticed by the program, there are no warnings etc." problems.

"and the only good solution to be sure, is using Mixed Contiguous (remember, at just trying to use the largest SFS)."

And what does this mean? I haven't a clue.

Would you just list the largest SFS one can use/try in each mode for a 4GB 64bit, and 32bit system that will not create mysterious problems.

And what is so special about SFS 500? Are you saying that again mysteriously (or maybe obviously) the sound just jumps to another level between 499 and 500 SFS?

By the way so far my 4GB 64bit W7 system (not the one in my signature at the moment) has played beautifully at 300 SFS MX Contiguous. I just tried 400 SFS in plain MX and the music hesitated in the middle of the first track for a split second. I'll go into the sound more in the other section but so far  .

Chris

No, I haven't seen the film "Idiocracy." Is it good, or just an example for the super bowl hype circumstance?

I used to go to concerts, classical and other, all the time, but now I live away from all live culture. I did love going, although I had a hard time lasting. I've always thought concerts were too long. Too much music at one time, or in one sitting. I understand the logistical concerns but that didn't stop me from struggling to stay awake after a while, especially when it was warm--which it often seemed to be. I do the same at home, but hey, not quite as disconcerting.

If you tell me what kind of classical music you like in particular I could give you some recommendations. If you like solo piano (or even if it doesn't particularly tickle your keys) you should get the 1981 or 80 as opposed to the 50's recording of the Gould Goldberg Variations (Bach). A piece I've listened to truly countless times. This recording in particular is superb. Interestingly, his 50's recording was played about twice as fast (break neck pace).

I'll have to check out Patty Griffin. I've heard her name but not much more.

Chris

Boleary, I hope your Pittsburgh Steelers continue to best my Greenbay Packers year after year. Actually them Packers used to be mine, but now they're only second, to New England... but who's counting.

How was the concert? Who won? 

Eva Cassidy is quite something. I only came across her maybe six months ago, and am truly glad I did. I find it so difficult to find good music (better said I guess would be, music I like). I'm so often convinced by reviews, official or consumer reviews on Amazon or the like, only to find that I don't agree with them at all.

I found Emusic is a good place for trying out stuff. You can basically buy an album track or three for 50 cents or so in mp3 format, usually at a pretty good compression ratio. That way I don't have to buy whole cds that I don't like. And if I find someone I really like, off to the cd store.

Recently I found Dar Williams, who I'd found before on "Cry, Cry, Cry," but not really paid attention to (I instead went for Richard Shindell who was also part of that album). She has some wonderful music. It is so full of heart, life and interesting lyrics. Green World and Mortal City are my favorites, others are spottier. Folk-rock.

For some reference, I like all kinds of music, classical, jazz, rock, etc. When it comes to rock/pop I'm just amazed by what reviewers and the like think is great music. On the other hand back when Led Zeppelin first came out, they all roundly panned them and now they're revered. I love Led Zep by the way, particularly the first two albums.

Hey, I'm just rambling on; it's the middle of the night or later, I can't see the clock from here. Feel free to ignore this. I'm just glad the Packers won, you should grant me that, because I didn't get to go to a concert or the liquor store. 

Champions of the World, really, yeah yeah, and God bless America (but not the rest of the world?). Isn't it depressing, really. Not the game, but the pomp and black eyed peas, and super serious analysis. Countless talking heads, discussing the merits of spreading them out and the 3 4 defense for hours and hours, day after day. And the huge sums spent on vapid entertainment when so much of the world is...  I love the game, but the rest is truly sickening.

Thank goodness for music, and lit, and a forum like this. Not maybe this particular late night note, but the spirit of this forum is unlike any other I've been part of.

Chris

Flecko Said "I tryed to started a project like this here. There was positive response but nobody except me uploaded something,  You can have my testset or share some files of your library"

I remember reading that and commented at the time. What I'm suggesting is similar but possibly simpler (see my post earlier in this thread). The question is can one attach a .flac file to a post and if so does Peter allow it (is it possible do you allow it Peter?).

If it's possible, people could just add a file at any time (no name, tag info erased, and only one track from a particular album to avoid pirating/copyright issues) and maybe explain what they listen to/for in particular and what they hear. It could be an ongoing thread and people could contribute at anytime.

Chris

Peter, I'm not sure if this is the right place for a request, if not please move it to said place.

I would like, if possible, a switch that turns off anything to do with looking for/displaying cover art (.jpg) files. Why, you might ask. Several reasons.

1. For trouble shooting purposes. I've had several issues where XX locked up do to cover art files. Corrupt and otherwise. A switch would easily bypass the problem temporarily allowing one to play music until one was in the mood to look for the corrupt or troublesome files.

2. I for one don't have much cover art in the form that XX needs, so my XX looks like an advert for XX. A waste of space and memory. I probably will never change all the art to the proper format (much to much of it) so I'm wasting space and memory for ever.     I'm in it for the music, if I want to look at and read the the covers, I (you guessed it  ) look at and read the covers.   

3. Who knows, it might improve sq, and it will certainly speed things up.

Chris

Way too many options  Nevertheless here's my dubious opinion.

Z4 seems to sound best for me with no ramdisk, in adaptive mode using either SC 12 sfs, or MC with 150 sfs. I give the very slightest edge to SC for slightly less edginess  . But that's after enduring a lot of edginess caused by fiddling with all the options.

For what it's worth, I did a very limited test for the above. I used several tracks from Fleetwood Mac, Tusk. "Think About Me," "Save me a Place," and one or two others. They have very hot over-saturated? highs which seemed to come through most bearably and clearly with my chosen settings, while still keeping the great sound stage, separation (air) and balance.

As to comparing it with earlier versions of XX, I'm not going there. Earlier versions (when I was able to get them to run consistently) sounded very good at times, maybe as good, maybe better? How will we ever really know with all the variables, options, continuing updates of OS and software, arghh! Not to mention that we don't listen to common music, double arghh!

Isn't there some way we could just upload a bunch of tracks to an area (can we upload them as attachments Peter?) How about this. Everyone uploads a track or two without name or artist (eg file1, file2 in flac format) that they think is good for testing making sure we get a variety of types rock, acoustic, classical, piano, synth, heavy metal, voice etc. Then we at least pair down variables somewhat. Without names and uploading just one track per album should also make the copyright/pirating thing pretty much irrelevant.

By the way, this edition of XX has been the most stable for me contrary to all dire warnings. I've even been able to switch back and forth between SC and MC without rebooting as long as I reduced the SFS size for SC. I kept it running without any reboots for at least 4 days when using MC, a record for any version of XX for me.

Chris

 

Peter, I haven't been on that computer since my last message (I wanted to listen to flac files so went to another computer  ) so I can't answer all the questions.

I can say that I had tried many other flac files, they all exhibited the same problem. I also made sure that they had no unusual characters.

I'm guessing you didn't notice in my second message that these files played when I moved them to the first or second level of my file structure but not at any lower level. That should answer the questions, as it should have nothing to do with the file itself or its name.

I'm using completely up-to-date Windows 7, 64 bit on that computer, same as the other one which works (same file structure).

Could it have something to do with 8.3 filenames? Doesn't make sense but... I recently re-installed it, maybe they're turned off.

The mp3 error that you mention. I can't make head or tail of that line. What does it mean? What are all the "&sp", between the words?

I did not move any cover art, I hardly pay attention to it. If it's there fine, if not, maybe someday is my attitude. In fact if there's a way to shut off the cover art function of XX, let me know please. I really rather not waste memory on it  .

Chris