XXHighEnd Model 0.9y-6

[earflappin]

Dan, I guess I'm confused about what you mean.  Can you clarify?  I was referring to my Q1 setting in this latest version of XXHE - 0.9y6.  i.e. My Q1 setting on the main panel is 16.  In the previous software version I had this set at Q1=0.  Man, this stuff just keeps getting more and more geeky.

[Dapper]

I couldn't agree more about the geekiness! 

What I notice is that when I have my mouse on the Q1 slider, it give me a new and different value than when I finish making the adjustment and move my mouse away.  It behaves like a tool tip in that it appears only when the mouse is hovering over it and disappears when the mouse is moved away.  What appears is "Q1-Parameter NN" when NN is the current value, and it is different from what you see when you look at the panel after the fact. 

You've answered my question though! 

[earflappin]

OK..I think I broke the code now....I went back and read the release notes for the 0.9y6 version.  I am running in engine 4 special mode with 32 buffer and with my Lynx card buffer at 32.  Q1=16 and Q1 tool tip = 8.  This is giving me a CPU usage which is pulsing between 1 and 12 and seems to vary based on the sample rate of the music I play.  I need to experiment more to see if I can get a more stable CPU usage.  Sound quality is very good however.

[earflappin]

OK...think I'm getting a handle on this.  As a next step I changed the special mode buffer from 32 to 64 and it immediately reduced and smoothed the CPU usage to an almost constant 2-3%.  My tool tip Q1 value changed from 8 to 18. I kept the Lynx card buffer at 32.  Changing it doesn't seem to have much impact on the CPU usage.

How does one decide the optimal Q1 setting for a given special mode buffer setting?  Peter, I love ya man and appreciate the progress on sound quality, but is there any way to de-geek the GUI? 

[ivo]

OK people, here is how it goes on laptop with DAC via USB in 16/44 mode without any upsamplings:

I can run good and detailed sound with amazing stereo having the following settings:
All Qs=0, Special mode, buffer=32, attended or unattended. Core appointments - Nothing and High. Scheme-2.
Not sure still about bass, have listened just this morning, but for sure sound since last version has more details inside, individual stuff is more in sync with each other, spatial presentation. Engine#3 for example also has a high detail rate, but these individual things do not make such a concerto like it is done by engine#4. So, these are my first impressions.

Problem: I tried running 24/96 with Anti-Image with the same settings as above (my DAC does not support 88 over USB) and after each track has played around 75%, sound just disappears. After 15 more seconds Engine#3 fails with error message that it is closed.

Question: If I feel crackless and popless sound with all Qs=0 and the lowest buffer setting in special mode, can I consider that I have almost ideal setup for what KS can bring me??? Have not yet tried going with Q1 < 0.

Ivo

[PeterSt]

Hi Ivo - Good !

Well ... from your description about the problem with Anti-Image, I now suddenly realize that this uses something which Engine#4 can't bear. Or at least I need to pay attention to this, and I never did ...

Q: Does AI work fine with Engine#3 for you ?

Question: If I feel crackless and popless sound with all Qs=0 and the lowest buffer setting in special mode, can I consider that I have almost ideal setup for what KS can bring me??? Have not yet tried going with Q1 < 0.

You are the best to answer that Ivo. Keep in mind though, the lowest Q1 just is -4, and there is really no logic in zero vs. below that. So, e.g. -1 is just lower than 0. That's all.
But generally ? yes I think you already have it at a level that is difficult to outperform. But then keep in mind : I never really listened to anything under 22 samples, and I wouldn't know (at all) what it can bring more for SQ at going lower.

Peter

[manisandher]

Well, to all of you who can use 'special mode' at really low Q1s... congratulations! I myself have totally glitchless QAP sound with a Q1 of 569 in 'special mode'. Perhaps a little high, but there you go.

I loved the previous Engine#4, with my own Q configuration of 3, 9, 15, 5, 10. But note that this remained in 'normal mode' - I could never get 'special mode' to work without distortion. Even in 'normal mode', the tonal balance just seemed right. But there did seem to be a downside, and that was a slight loss of dynamics. Now with the latest Engine#4 in 'special mode', I hear the same beautiful and natural tonal balance but with all the dynamics intact. And there really does appear to be more detail. Where on earth this could have come from, God knows.

If you can't get 'special mode' to work, my strong recommendation would be to change whatever you need to in order to get it working.

Mani.

[boleary]

Thanks Mani, green with envy here..... Hopefully, soon, I'll be hearing it too!

[Gerard]

Just like to say (again) that i am so pleased with this new sound!! Vocals have a new dimension and the extra details i am hearing is unbelievable!!
If this is the end of what is possible i will be very very happy with it!

 
 
 

[PeterSt]

If you can't get 'special mode' to work, my strong recommendation would be to change whatever you need to in order to get it working.

Additionally, because it hasn't been said all that explicitly so far : keep in mind that it is an interaction between what the driver does and what XXHighEnd does. So, suppose your driver can be set to 48, 96, 128, 256 (etc.), then while you can't find a working mode for (e.g.) 128 and for 48, 96 may well do it !

Maybe I should apologize for this indeed geeky way of going about with it, but in the end it *is* just so that what happens is far from normal. So in that context we have to operate this, but then it is for the good cause.
In a next version I hope to "automate" this process a bit, but I am not sure (at all) it can be done.

Peter

[Telstar]

I want to add my voice on the SQ of y6 with KS. It seem to add the best of wasapi and KS in the previous version.

Moreover, the occasional noise when browsing explorer or the library is gone. The sound is solid.
The downside is an AWFULLY SLOW interface. No matter what priority i used :/

-The gallery is unable to show more than 8 albums at once, then it reloads them and enters an endless loop.
-Playback of the first song starts after 5 seconds

It seems like going back to the very first version with an underpowered machine. Looking at the task manager there are cpu spikes when using the interface, but nothing when playing.

Settings used: q1=4 (my old time favourite is back!), q2-5=0, special mode, latency 32.

[Dapper]

In a next version I hope to "automate" this process a bit, but I am not sure (at all) it can be done.
Peter

One thing that occurs to me is you might want to implement another slider bar next to the Q1 slider that becomes active only in special mode in which case you would gray-out the current Q1 bar.  As far as I can decipher they indicate different things and it is a source of confusion for the community as people continue to communicate their old Q value which only has meaning in the context of buffer size.  Alternatively, if the Q values in normal and special modes actually do indicate the same thing, at least change the display so that it always indicates the actual setting, regardless of mode, so you wouldn't have to activate the tool tip to check your value in special mode. 

[PeterSt]

Yes, I will do something about it. This topic clearly shows how confusing it is. Maybe not for working with it, but indeed for talking about it.

[PeterSt]

Hi Telstar,

-The gallery is unable to show more than 8 albums at once, then it reloads them and enters an endless loop.

Is this with the thumbnail cache in use ?

-Playback of the first song starts after 5 seconds

Although this depends on many things, I don't see logic in this being more slow than before. So, there's only logic in this if you "caused" it yourself (like using FLAC now, while before it was just WAV).
I don't want to put tasks upon you, but if you can proove that with the exact same settings and tracks an earlier version started playing quicker, please let me know. In any case, don't forget what I told myself about W7 and its inconsistencies, which can be observed at using the Normalized Volume which for one album may take 5-7 seconds (which would be normal) and for another 1 minute.

Peter

[manisandher]

Question - if the SQ improvements of this latest version are due to reduced latency, then would it not stand to reason that a properly designed async interface would be even better?

earflappin,

I'm not sure that you ever got an answer to your question. I certainly don't have one.

What I have done though is to have a look at everyone's setup and the latency (Q1 value) they're getting in Special Mode. As you can see, my isochronous firewire setup (perhaps the closest to asynchronous USB here?) doesn't fare too well. It seems that PCI is the way to go...

Mani.