SQ of 0.9z-1

[manisandher]

Well, QAP has CERTAINLY changed!

Have a look at the spectra graphs that I posted earlier this year: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1017.0

Now have a look at the three graphs below:

The first shows the 192 file. This is exactly the same as it was before.

The second shows the 96 file with DAP applied. You can see that DAP does a really good job of recreating info above 48KHz.

The third shows the 16/44.1 file with QAP applied. It is different from before. There is a lot less HF content. How this could lead to a thinning of the sound, I have no idea...

(I still can't get QAI to play for more than 30 secs or so.)

More later...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani - Super !

And now a super stupid question : What do you actually do to create these graphs ? I mean, wouldn't this be dependend on the file played ? And that assumed, did you again use the Beethoven from before ?

Peter

[manisandher]

Peter, yes I used the exact same files as before: Beethoven Piano Concerto No4 in G major Op58 - Andante con moto.

I would be cautious about these findings, if it were not for the fact that the 192 file is identical.

EDIT:

But maybe you're asking for more info on actual procedure? Nothing complicated. I just set 'peak hold' on and play the whole track. So, these are just the peak signals at the various frequencies.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Really great. Who saves some, has some (dutch expression, and about your graphs from before).

I can't thank you enough for the effort. So, I will setup the same, and I *will* find it.
I hope.

Peter

[Telstar]

It may or may not be related to this, but when i switched on 9z with my *studio* PC i preferred the non upsampled version to the 4x AP I was using before (hence making also the computer more responsive since i WORK on it at the same time ).

I didnt make precise AB testing, and I havent done any on the real system, just feelings.
It could be very well that NOS playback improved a lot.

[ivo]

Hey Peter,

First of all: Thanks very much for really great and amazing sound coming out of XX.
Last weeks I have been listening to 9zb and to 9z-1 and here are my findings (16/44 flacs in QAP via original HiFace):

HF: 9z-1 seems like a bit thinner and clearer and a bit less harsh, meaning harsh is at very minimum anyways.
MF: 9z-1 seems like closer to listener so making the overall soundstage more round and full. Sound is even further away from the speakers.
LF: 9z-1 seems like deeper and fuller. Finally in my setup I really feel the bass.

Summary: 9z-1 is better than 9zb in all categories. The main advantage is that stereo is wider and sound is closer to listener, so making the room fuller of sound. Like it.

...and do not brake it please

[Flecko]

i preferred the non upsampled version to the 4x AP I was using before

I just can use 2XAP but I feel the same. It sounds unnatural and the sound seems to lose dynamic. With DAI I am still not sure what to prever. It has a better resolution than no-upsampling but it seems to cost a little dynamic. AI I would say is definitely better than AP. The only hook is, that it does not run longer than a couple of minutes, even in unattended. So I am using no upsampling.

[PeterSt]

The only hook is, that it does not run longer than a couple of minutes, even in unattended. So I am using no upsampling.

Yeah, sorry about that. I am working on that right now (as one of the last things for 0.9z-2).

[Flecko]

I am working on that right now (as one of the last things for 0.9z-2).

Thank you Peter! I am curious further testing DAI.

[DannyD]

It's probably worth weighing in with a contrary view regarding QAP.  This (0.9z-1) is the first version I've liked it in.  In earlier versions I found vocals disembodied and ethereal.  Now they have more weight and are no longer a distraction for me.  Of course the added spaciousness that QAP brings is a real treat.  So Peter, please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[PeterSt]

Danny - I will change nothing unless I can proove by measuring that something is wrong. This is what I am going to do next. I mean, the AI stuff has just been solved for 0.9z-2

Maybe for Mani too :
In the end I have no problems with QAP whatsoever, BUT, I think it was Danny here who indirectly pointed me at Peak Extension ... and that being off in my case (beause of all kinds of testing it had been off for a couple of days). So, I activated it again, and all was right (again). Now :

Can it be so that today you tested with Peak Extension while before it was Off ... or not even there ? (I didn't look it up, but I would think the latter)

In any case I will explicitly test it. And compare with AI too, since it's working anyway.

Thanks,
Peter

[boleary]

Given the posts in this thread I finally listened to 9-z1. (It had given me problems before cause I had 2x arc prediction ticked and it got all tangled up in a 24/96 file). Well, it seems that the sound of z1 improves zb, but I'm really wondering if anything was explicitly done to change the sound of z1? Afraid I was being seduced by the power of suggestion in this thread, I ran the WIFE TEST. Didn't take her long to conclude that Z1 is more "natural" than zb. Now, as we all know, the wife test is not always correct (don't tell her I said that) but in this area fresh ears are helpful.

To me the mid range of z1 is more resolved or firm, less "breathy" sounding (distortion?) with the female vocalists: Patty Griffin, Tomorrow Night, from 1000 Kisses; Sarah K., Vincent (16/44 version), Alison Kraus, Baby, Now That I've Found You. It seems that something is lost in z1 but it does sound more "correct."

I A, B, C'd between 9y-8c, 9zb, and 9-z1.

Hope I'm not crazy..... you can keep your opinions to yourselves....

[manisandher]

I've finally gotten my act together and done the things that I've been threatening to do for a while: 1) determine how transparent my 'PC chain' really is and 2) compare QAP applied to a 16/44.1 file recorded from vinyl vs. a native 24/176.4 file from the same vinyl.

You can read the results of 1) here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/How-can-influence-SQ (conclusion at the bottom).

Well 2) has just been really interesting. Firstly, I never knew how good 16/44.1 could be! It's pretty difficult to distinguish it from the source or the 24/176.4 file... but there is a small difference. The 24/176.4 file however is, to my, my wife's and to some friends' ears, identical to the source. Another surprise was how much better my 16/44.1 file sounds than the CD rip that I have (which happens to be HDCD-encoded).

But one thing I have verified for myself is that the current QAP (with Peak Ext) seems to be changing the sound. The native 16/44.1 and 24/176.4 files sound rich and full, like the analogue source. QAP on the 16/44.1 file sounds slighty 'thinner' in comparison.

[Peter, I'm happy to send you these two files - if you're interested, let me know how I can do this.]

Mani.

PS. All listening was done with HDCD-encoding in XX switched off, Adaptive mode and with the buffer set to 4096.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani - Thanks ...

FileMail and problematic files should do the job ...

Peter


PS : I have been testing today with test tones and the DigiCheck Vector Audio Scope, and funnily enough, the only really 100% in phase filter is (Double and Quad) Arc Prediction. So on that matter nothing seems to be wrong with it. I also saw a VERY nice surprise from it :
Arc Prediction shows a relation between Peak and RMS Voltage which is exactly correct (1.414 factor difference), while Anti Imaging showed both equal !! The latter can be reasoned by me but is very hard to explain (but think that only a square can do this ), but about the former ... I never knew how to see or calculate it, while it would be the 100% proof it is just right. So it is ... haha (tested with an 18KHz test tone). Notice this is all about the two shapes a wave can have at producing the exact same result (which is what I "found" ...).

[Marcin_gps]

PS. All listening was done with HDCD-encoding in XX switched off, Adaptive mode and with the buffer set to 4096.

Hi mani,

Drastic changes, from 32 to 4096 samples? Did you get the PCI Adapter Case? Any other things on your mind?
I've switched to my second PC, completely dedicated for audio purposes. I've removed almost everything (according to cics' recommendations and my own) - unnecessary services, drivers, registry entries. This is on a Biostar TA690G mATX mobo with dual core X2 3600+ underclocked to 800MHz (at 0.72V!). CPU temperature is only 19* at the moment :D Anyway, the sound is still a lot worse compared to my new PC. Most probably this is due to inferior motherboard's PSU section and PSU itself + regular HDD instead of SSD. Sound cards should have separate ps inputs and feed from external power source. That would make things easier...