SQ of 0.9z

[Suteetat]

My system is unfortunately not quite settled at this time as I am still burning in my new DAC.
What I can tell from initial listening is with Q1 set to 1 for both, adaptive mode is more relaxed,
beautiful on vocal music. Special mode sounds tauter, a bit more dynamic but a bit less extended top,
I think.

[Flecko]

Hi Peter,
I think your new version sounds more clear and more "analog" than the previous. It is a good step foreward. In my ears special sounds more coherent and more clear than adaptive. Also adaptive has less "punch" in the whole frequency range. I prefer special in every way.
That is my first impression.
Thank you!

[Suteetat]

Does anyone notice this? With Q1=1 in adaptive mode, with large buffer, the sound is very relaxed, sometimes a bit too relax and mellow for my taste. When buffer side is reduced, the sounds get tauter. Somewhere between 128-256, the sound becomes too lean and bass is too thin. My ideal buffer is probably somewhere between 128-256 unfortunately my Lynx card buffer side does not offer anything in between.

[boleary]

Holy sh*t! Again, WTF!

Just did an A-B with 9y-8. Played Imagine, Eva Cassidy, in 9z louder than ever before. More resolution in the top end than Iv'e ever heard. Then played the same 9y-8. Can't believe the distortion that was there. Both versions set to Signature.

Awesome!

[Flecko]

I regret I posted so quick. For now I have to say I am not sure if adaptive mode is better or special. I have made a tweak on my system because sound quality has become worse. I made a second user and started in debug mode without any startup programms. Now I was listening to 09z again. I feel better over all. It realy could be that the top end is more "cristal" with adpative mode and everythings just the other way round I felt before. I will wait a few days and report back again. All I can say is, the new version is better than the one before...

[easternlethal]

^{I'd call Special 'dry' and Adaptive... well, just 'perfect' actually. It is very, very listenable.}

oh manis.. what would Romy the Kat say if he were here. ha ha!

Am loving Special mode so far. Now all XX needs is VST support so I can mess about with the phasing and X-overs.

Peter - how about instead of me going out and buying an RME AES I just pay you the money instead and you build in the support??

[Marcin_gps]

Call me crazy, but I think that specific order of playback settings matters (besides psychological side). Peter, is this remotely possible from a software/system side? Let's say that during one system runtime I'm trying 10 different settings in XXHE (for adaptive and special mode). Can you tell that each setting is totally independent?

[manisandher]

oh manis.. what would Romy the Kat say if he were here. ha ha!

I don't know what Romy would say if he were here. But I don't think he'd take issue with what I've written. Here are a couple of quotes from his website:

"What greatly surprises me is that fact that all playback software sound very different."

"So, I wonder what makes a WAV player to sound good. I would write up my own WAV player if I have any idea what makes a player to sound good…"

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

For those having troubles playing with low buffer settings, try higher Q1 values. Endless path of combinations... Peter, what's your statement about recommended settings - keep Q1 at 1 with lowest possible buffer, even if it means 2048 samples or try higher Q1 values with low buffer settings? For me it's either Q1=1 and 2048 samples or Q1=7 at 256 samples? What's the difference in theory?

Looking forward to your reply,
Marcin

[PeterSt]

Am loving Special mode so far. Now all XX needs is VST support so I can mess about with the phasing and X-overs.

Peter - how about instead of me going out and buying an RME AES I just pay you the money instead and you build in the support??

Haha, I guess if you put your finger over an RME card, a ToolTip pops out. Man, I can't even do that with software !
So it seems.

[PeterSt]

Call me crazy, but I think that specific order of playback settings matters (besides psychological side). Peter, is this remotely possible from a software/system side? Let's say that during one system runtime I'm trying 10 different settings in XXHE (for adaptive and special mode). Can you tell that each setting is totally independent?

NO !
I discovered this myself a few days back, and discovered that a certain setting wouldn't play anymore at all, as if all the albums were badly ripped. I really needed a shutdown of XXHighEnd + restart.

I dedicated this to the same boleary reported a few weeks back, after which he started changing settings and got nothing to play anymore. Or something ike that.
IIRC I did something to prevent this, but could never really test it because I couldn't repeat the situation. Generally though, quitting XX and restart it will refresh any "memories" left, and start fresh. Some things are really complicated here.

From what you told I don't think it is related to you problem (can't play anymore at all), but from the quote above I'd say indeed there is some problem somewhere about things which get stuck for a certain (not working !) mode/setting.

So take it that you are right (I do too), but try to proove it is solved by quit/restart. If that doesn't help in your situation, it must be something quite different. beyond comprehension. Well, mine.

Peter

[Marcin_gps]

Good sound is back again, I guess. I've found the best settings from a system/XXHE side, but lowest buffer size is still 2048. I have no idea, how it worked at 1024, never mind... Now it's time for further hardware improvements and tweaks:

- second PSU
- HDDs out with external power connected via eSATA
- kuroutoshikou no-pci cards (http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci+fset.html http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci-express.html http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci.html)
- linear PSU (maybe)
- good power cable and socket outlet

etc

[AUDIODIDAKT]

To be honest Peter,

I DON'T like the sound of the latest version,
or something else is wrong, but i dont think so

I use same settings as previous version. (see sign.)
The sound is less full and rich. (less bass in mid region)
I hear no (lesser) wood in the acoustic gitars (Armik) for eg, I also played Beef (ska, reggae band from Eindhoven) wich I totally dislike on z version
Armik - Isla del Sol    is also a HDCD, i still like it better played with y verion even without HDCD coding.
I also find the "background" more dead, so less spacious

So I did some testing,

1- original cd played directly with plextor thru FW (Texas Instruments), used playback software foobar wasapi 24/44

2- Played with xx y version

3- played with xx z version

z version always finished last, how come ? (1 and 2 match the most)

Peter, I will send you some files, do me favor and compare them for yourself.
Let me know what you think
 
Best,

Roy

[PeterSt]

Hey Roy,

I will for sure try the files (if you only allow me not to A-B anything ).

But I don't think using Adaptive Mode with (1)/48 is a good thing ... Better try (1)/1024 ...

Peter

[AUDIODIDAKT]

I just send you those files, just play some tracks, its very obvious,
you dont need trained ears to hear the difference. (I also dislike A-B anything, as you know)

Thnx for advise, will take a listen to 48 vs 1024 (or other settings)
Should I use xx buffer settings or soundcard settings. (or is it the same)

Thnx