0.9y-7

[manisandher]

THANK YOU Peter! This is superb!!!

In 'Adaptive Mode', I'm getting most (if not all) of the naturalness of 'Special Mode' (zero digital 'glare') but without the hiccups.

With my modest Atom-based PC (the C.A.P.S.), I have the buffer set to 128 and Q1=2 (with Q1=1, I still get the odd click and pop, which also shows up in the log file).

This evening, I'll check your 'new' thoughts on the Adaptive Mode and QAI combo...

THANK YOU once again!

Mani.

[Telstar]

As said in other thread, on my studio pc it works just great on the lowly x-fi (yeah, i should get a better card). Preferred without upsampling.

[listening]

I looked forward to hearing "Rene Clemencic and his flutes" this evening and read the message about the new version concurrently. My first impressions after a short music session: I was able to find the optimal working point immediately in adaptive mode. The different ancient flutes sound for the first time without that little acute sound - really impressive. Addionally I feel that especially with high definition records  (I tried with 2L) string instruments sound very expressive but without agression.

Congratulations Peter!

Georg

[ivo]

Hi Mani,

I have the buffer set to 128 and Q1=2

How is your CPU feeling at the above settings?

Ivo

[Leon]

Hi Peter,

Just wanted to say I love the detailed and yet full sound of 09y-7 KS in adaptive mode, I just cannot get enough of listening to the music especially songs with a strong emphasize on focals and analogue guitar play. I am not going to start superlatives or try to describe what it is which makes it so much more than it already was. Just wanted you to know I think you did a great job.

ciao
Leon

[PeterSt]

Thank you Leon. I must say, just today I'm listening to it "in full" by myself (as just explained the other topic, Quad Anti Imaging).
So, I just started "We want Miles" CD-2, and ... I can only agree (and not because it is something which I "created" -> always keep in mind the help of you all out there !! ).

Shivers ...

[Marcin_gps]

I like it very much Peter! Adaptive mode Q1=1, buffer size=128. I like it so much, that I'll probably give up from CMP on dedicated server.

[PeterSt]

Thank you for the nice words Marcin. But keep on being critical where needed !

Peter

[GerardA]

But keep on being critical where needed !

Ok, You asked for it...
I tried 9y-7 and it worked ok in adaptive mode with 256 and 88 samples in the terratec.
It sounds very detailed, BUT there is a high frequency ringing to voices (transients) that I think will make my ears bleed if I turn up the volume.
Details are etched out, but there is still the smell of acid around.
Maybe it is my OS-DAC that is unmasked now, or is this version perfect only for NOS-DAC's?
So I went back to 9-y5-8 (?) and the sound was smooth again although with less detail, but more analog like.
Only I did not manage to get it back in special mode yet.
So is it just me complaining? Or maybe some better settings? (DAP, DAI, NOS all the same for this problem)
Sorry to be critical!

[PeterSt]

Ok Gerard, good, and thanks.

I tried 9y-7 and it worked ok in adaptive mode with 256 and 88 samples in the terratec.

What is 88 ? 88 does not exist ...

On a side note, there is no need to go back to an earlier KS version, because in here (0.9y-7) you can do the same, if you're only using Normal Mode or Special Mode (it's probably the latter you used).
But let's start with my question above ...

Peter

[GerardA]

88 samples is the lowest value I can set in the terratec software ,which says 3.6 (or 3.2? (at work now)) seconds latency.
This is for asio, but it makes a difference when I change it so I guess it's just general latency.

Is the previous version exactly the same in normal mode? (Then I'll have to listen better tonight)
(Special mode did not work for me in the last two versions, but maybe I have to try more for that?)

[manisandher]

I have the buffer set to 128 and Q1=2

How is your CPU feeling at the above settings?

It's feeling on top of the world!

I can't quite get total stability with Q1=1@128, irrespective of core appointment (this still makes a difference even though the Atom N270 processor is single core - it has two threads which seem to act it the same way as cores).

But with Q1=2@128, everything really is cool.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Peter, I'm very happy with the sound that I'm getting with Q1=2@128 (Adaptive, of course).

BUT...

I can also get a stable sound (no errors in log file) with Q1=5@32. (Interestingly, setting the buffer to 64 samples in XXHE and soundcard doesn't work as well as 32 or 128.)

I will take a closer listen this evening to see which I prefer. But from a technical perspective, should there be much of a difference?

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani - Yes, because (when you change the driver's buffer length) you change the interaction of the driver with the soundcard/DAC. And as I said elsewhere, that is a first phenomenon which changes sound. It always did.

Peter

[PeterSt]

88 samples is the lowest value I can set in the terratec software ,which says 3.6 (or 3.2? (at work now)) seconds latency.
This is for asio, but it makes a difference when I change it so I guess it's just general latency.

Is the previous version exactly the same in normal mode? (Then I'll have to listen better tonight)
(Special mode did not work for me in the last two versions, but maybe I have to try more for that?)

Hi Gerard,

I'm afraid you mess things up a bit (I didn't say you make a mess of it, haha);
If you have a setting of 88 samples in the Terratec, you can not use that for adaptive mode. Why ? well, because I did not take that into account, and there is no matching setting for it in XXHighEnd (I could add it though).

Now, 88 samples would be a very strange value (but it could be). Similarly, 3.6 or whatever seconds latency is a. way too high to exist in reality (I mean, what would the poor Pro guys doing with that) and b. never matches your 88 number. I am not sure which of the two to believe, but I tend to believe neither.

That this leads to unintended sound, seems a "fact" to me ...

Is the previous version exactly the same in normal mode?

Together with your other post (all implying you never got around to Special Mode (working)), to me this tells that somehow you(r system) may not be able to cope with "better detail", so to say. I mean, it seems that we all benefit from the ultra low latency, and assumed (!) that we all are not into "adding a pile of bass" or anything which would be far from neutral/intended, it should be so that the ultra low latency gives us a better representation of what's really in the material. Keep in mind : it is important to keep on assuming that in here we are all like that, which is a tad different from the car radio SPL world record leage. Thus :

That assumed, your system would be emphasizing the wrong things in it.
Notice this is similar to my SSD experience at first, while
a. the SSD seems to make things better, but
b. it just emphasizes (somehow).
and in my system it emphasized something which was wrong. So, the same could be happening in your system.

But before blahblahing around further about this, please first use Adpative Mode as intended, and this means matching the buffer size setting in XXHighEnd with reality ! (and funnily enough, at not doing so, XX would be making sound worse on purpose ... indirectly, but it would).

Let me know what happens !
Peter


PS: No, Normal Mode is not 100% the same, and although I can not imagine it can make a difference, there's at least one person around here to whom I had to tell the same (so, he too perceived a difference which I couldn't explain other than that small change I applied).
But this doesn't seem what you are talking about, and merely compare apples and organges. On this matter, do note that Normal Mode, Special Mode and Adaptive mode are there to have a different sound (explicitly) ! Just like Engine#3 is another beast all together.