Peter,

I tried closing DPC Lat. checker and the clockres resets back to 15.6ms - SQ accompanying.
FYI.

Raj

Marcin,

well done and thank you again! This really works.

I use special-KS : engine 4 and the SQ change is way out of the placebo range.
Please keep us updated if you can get it to 0.5ms.

I just start DPC latency checker, stop it and minimise it so that I don't have to see it --> Clockres is 1ms. 
Now, I know why XXHE sounds better when latency checker is "on".

Peter,
possible to include it in the next version... ?

Raj

I usually play unattended with "Copy to XX_drive..." option but without (Do not start playback...") as I am not keen on the "Do not start Playback..." option.

In the release notes if you use "Do not start playback... " option then it is to be used together with "Copy to XX-drive...".

However, recently I have been playing unattended with only the "Do not start the playback..." option without "Copy to XX-Drive..." and this sounds really good. I would say "spiritual" in my system.

I have been playing with .wav files (44.1 -> 176.4 with AP).

It would be great if some of you can check this.
Hope to hear some feedback

Raj

SFS:21 is quite a class!
The sound difference between 09.z2 & 09.z3 (SFS:21) is not subtle.
It is as much as what ramdisk had inroduced.

- 09.z3  (SFS:21) has introduced a level of transparency not in the earlier versions.
It feels like a veil of cloth has been removed from the speakers - Very engaging and the music grips your shoulders.

- The tick at start of playback remains. But it has become a comforting tick to indicate that all is going well.

- 44.1KHz tracks upsampled to 88.2 or 176.4 (PeakEx + AP) need a different device buffer & Q1 setting.
This was not the case in earlier versions.
Track with repetitive drum (bass) was used to check this - whether bass was tight or brrrr...

Native high res. & (88.2/PkEx+AP) - Device setting 256 : Q1:8samples
176.4 PkEx+AP - Device setting 384 : Q1:6 samples
Seems like a tiny change but the SQ difference is not as tiny.

I don't use "Do not start playback" and also high SFS size sounds best e.g. 175 - 220.

Raj

P.S. Installed W2008 for 09.z3. W2008 is rock solid in performance. SQ remains consistent throughout the playlist.
You already anticipate this during setup (very lean) and some of the (Death tweaks) are already done.
Shutoff network, wireless, unshare IRQ etc. and it is what a music machine should be close to.
My Vista setup (non-Vlite) had inconsistentcies in SQ even during one track in the playlist.

Aha! From the posts above, now I understand why ...

I read that jitter was susceptible mainly after USB-SPDIF (Hiface) conversion and that the data through USB to Hiface was robust. So thinking myself to be smart I bought a decent USB cable (female end) and connected the Hiface directly to the DAC with a male/male RCA adapter. I was expecting magic and I was very wrong.
The connection of the Hiface with SPDIF to the DAC was just superior. I couldn't understand it...

So I took it further... and connected the Hiface directly to my Laptop and DAC (no cables at all but with male/ male RCA adapter - good quality). The SPDIF was still way superior. So presently I am just sticking with the SPDIF cable.

Thanks for sharing, Flecko!
Raj 

My ears must be getting as old as Boleary's... 

The "soulful" feeling is lost in my system when played with the music files stored directly in the Ramdisk.
Hopefully 09-z3 gives the flexibilty to stay with the current method of file handling...

Raj

Peter,

I might be writing complete nonsense now...

Is it possible to partition ramdisk with 2 separate cluster sizes?
Then the small files and coverart can sit in the 4k cluster sized partition.

Raj

But guys no harm in trying. That's what we do here as members in this forum.
Imagine noone tried Marcin's super idea.

Software versions could have changed and different benchmarks seem to exist also.

P.S. I took the write speed as a benchmark in my selection.

Raj

gilisoft
http://www.gilisoft.com/product-ramdisk.htm

dataram
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

I won't be able to test anything for a few days as I will be on holiday in a few hours.

Raj

Yes they do save/load images.

I used FAT16.

The three I saw are QSoft, GiliSoft & VirtualDisk.
I tried GiliSoft.

Peter,
yes I thought the ram read/write should be the same but the benchmark tables say otherwise. I don't understand why. The read/write rate differences are small but if I can hear (I believe) it then it matters to me.

P.S. I meant that the Ramdisk was way faster than the HDD. Just funny to see the test proceed in HDTune.
Raj

Hi all,

I better mention this while Ramdisk is the flavour of the week...

I looked up on Ramdisk benchmak and picked one of the top three (not free but has trial period). The read/write rates are higher than the free one suggested earlier by Marcin.

Result:
I thought I couldn't improve my laptop it anymore... but I was wrong.
Even blacker and more separation between the instuments and vocals. Cearly better for me.

I guess it follows the law of nature... If you want something free and good then get Fo*b*r and if you want something more rewarding then buy XXHE.

Please try it and don't forget to share findings... and explain if you know why... I thought ram is just ram.
Just create ramdisk with different SW, have separate XXHE installed and run it to compare.

Should also be able to check Ramdisk performance using HDTune. Just compared my HDD with the Dataram ramdisk and almost fell off the chair.

Raj

Nick,
your theory definitely holds water.

If the idea is to keep the transfer rates high and the paths short... perhaps it will help to have XXHE on Ramdisk and the music on a SSD connected through PCI slot. Then South bridge is out of the picture.

Is that possible???

Raj

I just used FAT16 and used the size which was already displayed (you should increase it) if you want to play flac or "copy to XXHE HD".
Click run. That's it.

Unzip XXHE in the newly created ramdisk. Create XXData folder. Basically the usual steps...

Run XXHE from the new Ramdisk and start also the original one from your HD - then you can A-B the XXHE/HD and XXHE/Ramdisk.

Raj

Mani,

regarding your point on the SFS & Ramdisk, here is my system observation. (Note: my system may not be the most revealing.)

Yes, it still does make a difference with the SFS settings even with my Vista OS. For optimal SQ, I have to keep mine at 120-150 (I have always upsampled 4x).

But, interestingly I hear no difference in core-appointment settings, which I used to hear when playing with XXHE on harddisk.

Raj

Even worse ... I did it with hi-res flac... ha ha!
Yes, there is surely a need for decent space in the ramdisk.
Learn something new everyday....

Raj