Split file size and volume

[boleary]

Ever since Marcin posted the reducing the split file size to the minimum produced very good sound for him, I've been experimenting with it as well. With vocals, Leonard Cohen, Dylan, Patty Griffin, Eva, Dianna,  etc., the "correct" setting changes for each singer depending on the volume level. Take a singer and turn the volume to a moderate level. Here, on my system, setting the split file size to 12 does sound very good, but, turn the volume up to very loud and everything sounds way too detailed and etched, like a too sharpened digital photo. Keeping the sound very loud, turn the split file size up to between 80 and 200 (depending on the vocalist) and it sounds very pleasing again, though it looses some detail it sounds very realistic.

Its interesting that reducing the size at loud volumes initially sounds "best" but it soon becomes fatiguing. In a way, the split file size acts like a master tone control: reducing it makes all ranges, low, mid and high,  sharper and more revealing, thus for moderate volume it sounds "best"; increasing it, at very high volumes, rounds all ranges off and makes them feel more pleasing. Give it a try........and let me know if I've lost my mind......

[PeterSt]

Give it a try........and let me know if I've lost my mind......

Can we let you know without trying ?

[PeterSt]

I have just thought of a Q6 knob for this ...
Could be more interesting than Q1 from Engine#3 ...

[Marcin_gps]

Good idea, but wouldn't it be less accurate from current form?

[boleary]

Having an easily accessible control, on the face of the gui, would be best, IMHO. I've started making a list of where each vocalist sounds best. Would be nice to be able to make this adjustment quickly.

Also, there's a lot more to unearth with this. I think the effect is different for high def files, they seem to like the lower settings at higher volume levels, though I haven't tested enough to be sure.

As Paul Simon so eloquently sang, Still Crazy After All These Years, yeah!

[manisandher]

This post has nothing to do with volume, only split file size.

Firstly, Peter please NOT another Q knob for this - I'll go insane...

But the split file size clearly DOES change the sound. Lower values sound 'clearer', but perhaps too 'edgy'. Higher values sound 'fuller' but perhaps too 'woolly'. It therefore seems logical that there should be a good middle ground and that's what I've been trying to establish.

Again, I used my 24/176.4 recording from vinyl and compared the sound directly to the vinyl.

But everything is inextricably linked - all the other parameters in XX have an affect, so finding an absolute value for the split file size was going to be difficult. Without going into details, I found that my ADC/PC/DAC chain is most transparent when I use a device buffer size of 1024. (This has nothing to do with XX though.) With this set, I played around with the split file size.

And you know what, I got the best sound when the split file size was... THE SAME SIZE AS THE FILE BEING PLAYED!!! (For my 24/176.4 file, it was 330MB.)

Now, how this translates to multiple files and playlists with different formats, I'm not sure. But assuming there is something in my findings, wouldn't it be great if XX could set the split file size automatically, track by track, based on the size of each file being played.

This way we'd get the best sound... and remain relatively sane too... although it has to be said that all long-time users of XX are waaaay beyond this point already.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

And you know what, I got the best sound when the split file size was... THE SAME SIZE AS THE FILE BEING PLAYED!!! (For my 24/176.4 file, it was 330MB.)

Hmm ... Interesting ...

Although this has nothing to do with the eventual memory used (as you will know), it does make sense to me. Not how it works (for the effect of SQ) but indeed what causes it.
So, if true (and why not, for now) it would be a next thing which *is* under my control, without any notice why it would matter. On the other hand, I can imagine (at this moment) that when I dive into it, I may be able to reason out what's happening internally (the OS).

Warning :

It will *not* be so that anyone now can look at his file size and on a per track base set the Split File size;
With Mani it makes sense because his native file (size) is the same as what's been played (even that is not true 24->32 bits, correct Mani ?), so for that certain part Mani can see what to set. However, if this is about 16/44.1 becoming 32/176.4 there won't be a rule for you. Not even for me at this moment, and it is that what is to be sorted out by me.

But *if* others could find more "rules" in this area, I would be very happy to learn them; As  usual, I on my own won't be able to find all what you all togther can. So please do (explicitly for the good sake), and let's again make something better out of it.
It's been too long already.

Thanks, and thank you Mani (and please let me know your "DAC Needs" setting).
Peter

[manisandher]

Peter, you're right of course. My DAC is set to 32 bits.

I started at 1000MB and then jumped to 12MB to hear the difference, which was as I described. I then continued to increase the split file size until the sound between the recording and vinyl 'equalized'. 330MB seemed to do the trick, but I'll try 495MB... I'll also try this with my Weiss interface, which does work at 24 bits.

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

Nice discovery Mani! I confirm that it works and sounds awesome Now it is clear to me, why 'the best settings' that sounded great with one album, don't seem to work with the others...
It would be great to have auto split size for every track, but as Peter said, it won't be easy for upsampled files.

Marcin

PS
Mani, would you agree that buffer size at 4096 has more depth and air than 1024, but the latter is more saturated in the midrange? I would also like to know how you describe the difference between Scheme-3 and No-Appointment. It seems that we are the only guys here who prefer 'no-scheme' sound. For me, no-appointmen gives the most neutral, transparent and raw sound, which I personally prefer. Scheme-3, on the other hand, is smooth and it's very easy to distinguish and localise plans.

[manisandher]

OK, there's not a lot in it between a split file size of 330MB and 495MB for this 330MB 24/176.4 file. But I prefer the 495MB - it really does seem to hit the 'sweet spot'. Pure coincidence? Maybe...

Marcin, my signature is wrong actually. I used to use 'no scheme' up until a few months ago when I switched from 4 to 2 cores in my BIOS. With 2 cores, I use 'scheme 3'. But I have to admit that I've always found it difficult to hear differences in SQ between the various schemes. If you're still using a single core, then I suspect 'no scheme' will be best for you, no?

I've updated my signature...

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

No, I got back to default settings, because I need decent performance for apps like Photoshop. Either way, I hear the difference between schemes right away.

[manisandher]

But *if* others could find more "rules" in this area, I would be very happy to learn them; As  usual, I on my own won't be able to find all what you all togther can. So please do (explicitly for the good sake), and let's again make something better out of it.

Hey Peter, forget these pleas for help... just threated to introduce yet another Q knob instead.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Pure coincidence? Maybe...

Of course, it could just be that the 'sweet spot' for 16/44.1 material is always around 60MB irrespective of file size (with DAC set to 16 bits and assuming no extra processing in XX). In which case, one would expect the 'sweet spot' for native 24/176.4 files to be around 480MB (with DAC set to 32 bits and assuming no extra processing in XX).

But I kind of hope that the optimum split file size is actually related to the track size, and that this can in some way be automated.

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

I agree, but in current state, there will be a lot of 'out of memory exceptions', at least I get those if I set the split size above 400 MB (16/44 with QAP).

[manisandher]

Marcin, I think this is related to Peter's 'warning' above. QAP will be introducing additional processing that will need to be factored in.

In any event, try what you did with a native 24/176.4 file and see what happens.

Mani.