Split file size and volume

[boleary]

All the testing I did with 16/44 files was also with 2x arc prediction. Here,playlists with various vocalists generally sounded best with the split file size set at 90mb. However, a particular artists voice on a particular album can be further "dialed in" based on the qualities of that artists voice. Lastly, at lower volumes, reducing the split file size generally sounds much better, particularly the bass. Is this not true for you Mani?

I agree that a new "Q knob" is not the answer because I don't think, given the location of Q knobs, all the different file formats, and  all the XX choices for playing those files, the split file size setting is something you set once and then forget about. Further, given these same considerations, I don't think it is likely (or even desirable given personal preferences) one can have XX automatically set the size per track. For convenience, I think a button for setting the split file size should be on the face of the gui down near the play button so one can quickly adjust it, much like a tone control on an integrated amp.

Just my 2 cents. 

[AUDIODIDAKT]

I agree that a new "Q knob" is not the answer because I don't think, given the location of Q knobs, all the different file formats, and  all the XX choices for playing those files, the split file size setting is something you set once and then forget about. Further, given these same considerations, I don't think it is likely (or even desirable given personal preferences) one can have XX automatically set the size per track. For convenience, I think a button for setting the split file size should be on the face of the gui down near the play button so one can quickly adjust it, much like a tone control on an integrated amp.

Just my 2 cents. 

Ofcourse a new knob is not desired not even 1 knob is disered, BUT, whe can learn from those settings and when we do,
I know for sure Peter will find a way to make "schemes" or "settings" depending on the genre or album.
We can not expect from him to test all options, there literary thousends!

I really DONT like knobs at all, not even check-boxes.
Peter needs to update the functionalty of the GUI together with the implementation of .ini files per album
when this is done you can put those commands under a remote button for eg, (or post them )
Also you can stay in your listening position and switch between settings or schemes you want to test.

I also dont like to "switch" everytime between adaptive and special mode when going from jazz to ambient for eg.

Roy

PS: hope this makes 4 cents
PPS: Dont forget Girder can learn all those functions and checkboxes when the xx form is fully "functional", it can do a string of command too.

[manisandher]

Without meaning to stir the pot, I hope people realise how important this topic is. It's started to make me think that any comparisons that I've made in the past between, say, 16/44.1 and 24/176.4 files are invalid because I've not optimised the split file size for the two resolutions. For example, at 100MB, most 16/44.1 tracks sound OK. But 24/176.4 tracks sound too bright and forward. At 400MB, this brightness goes... but 16/44.1 tracks now sound too dark.

We've GOT to get to the bottom of what's going on here...

EDIT

Oh, and some people who use a large split file size may not agree that it sounds 'dark'. But I bet these people are of the 'ultra-low latency' brigade, which tends to sound brighter and more forward.

EDIT EDIT

Actually, this wasn't what I meant to say AT ALL.

It seems to me that the split file size has a simlar affect to the sound as the device buffer size - the larger the darker, the smaller the brighter. Now, for ultra-low latency you'll obviously have a low device buffer size, BUT... you're probably going to have to set the split file size quite low also to get glitch-free palyback. So, can you now be sure that it's the low latency that's causing the change in sound, and not the low split file size?

I think that's what I meant to say!

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

Yes we have to, otherwise I'll end up in a psychiatrist institution, haha 

But seriously, it does have a great impact on SQ. It would be great if Peter implemented 'auto split size' based on a track's file size (assuming that's the optimum).

[manisandher]

... assuming that's the optimum.

Ah, and there's the rub, as a certain gentleman, who was born 10 Km down the road from me in 1564, would say.

But as Peter has said, he won't be able to determine this on his own. (I'm not sure if I trust his ears at his age anyway - he's started hearing 'rain'!)

Mani.

[Per]

Yes,

to be - or not to be (confused)
that is the question

Per

[PeterSt]

I'm afraid it may not be able to work at all, because the "memory stuff" is not something you can control dynamically. So, I can make those Split File sizes dynamic allright, but not the memory for it. If you try this for one track it will work, for that track. Do it a next time, and it will work again. So in the very far end it will need Engine3.exe to restart each time (doable) but it won't work at all for gapless etc.

But this all is hooked to your findings which may be too much of a derival from what's really (physically) happening.
I'll see.

Peter

[Marcin_gps]

Mani, you have all the necessary equipment (analog setup for LP) as well as A/D converter, so you'll be able to find 'the best' values - the most transparent compared to vinyl. I don't have any reliable point of reference, only my ears and assumption what sounds right or not. I think we all should contribute and try different values, especially for 16/44 with QAP.

[manisandher]

... at lower volumes, reducing the split file size generally sounds much better, particularly the bass. Is this not true for you Mani?

I think it depends what you mean by 'sounds better'. The bass seems to tighten up with lower split file sizes., but can lose some of its weight and fullness. For example, a grand piano can start sounding like a smaller stand up. Generally, the sound can get too thinned out.

But I haven't really listened out for differences between various volumes - if the volume becomes yet another variable, I really will lose the plot and might just descend to using WMP.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Mani, you have all the necessary equipment (analog setup for LP) as well as A/D converter, so you'll be able to find 'the best' values - the most transparent compared to vinyl.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. You see, if I swap my RME interface with my Weiss interface, everything changes. So yes, I think I can find the best settings for my setup, but I really doubt they'll be the best for anyone else. Hey, but who knows? I'll certainly do this and let you know what I come up with...

But for now, I'm finding that if I play 16/44.1 with a split file size of 65 (my favourite 'fixed' setting), then I need to play QAP with 70 or so to take a slight edge off and bring the bottom end back. Not a big difference in split file size at all - certainly no where near the increase that native 24/176.4 seems to require to sound right.

[manisandher]

From the Schumann thread:

From what I've read about the split file size feature it can be stressful, on the PC that is!
Might it be worth setting your chip to it's default speed/multiplier & voltage for a session & see (hear) if it helps?

Interesting Jack.

My understanding is that the higher the split file size, the more 'stress' is placed on the PC. So, could it be that the changes in SQ that I'm (we're) experiencing are all due to different stresses placed on the PC with different split file sizes? Maybe.

An easy test would be for me to set the split file size and then increase the CPU clock rate and/or CPU voltage. I'll do this and report back...

EDIT But what's particularly interesting about different split file sizes is that you can hear the change in the sound immediately, within the first second or two of the music playing. I mean, you don't have to wait until the data is transferred internally in the PC, when a smaller split file size should place less stress on the system. And the sound seems to be quite consistent - it doesn't seem to change between the points where data is being transferred internally.

Does this make sense?

Mani.

[manisandher]

An easy test would be for me to set the split file size and then increase the CPU clock rate and/or CPU voltage. I'll do this and report back...

I've just tried this, and am quite surprised by the results - not what I expected at all...

Just to give some background, I can vary the base CPU rate of 133MHz by between 9x-21x using the mobo's BIOS utility. I normally have it set to 9x. But I've just tried 15x and 21x also, keeping the split file size fixed at 12MB. I used a single track for evaluation throughout; David Sylvian's 'When Poets Dream of Angels', which is beautifully recorded and starts with three acoustic guitars at left, centre and right.

9x 133MHz = 1.2GHz
The sound is as I described it before - very detailed, but edgy and fatiguing after a while.

15x 133MHz = 2.0GHz
The sound is fuller. It's almost like the split file size has been increased.

21x 133MHz = 2.8GHz
The sound is fuller still. Rich and warm. Again, it's like the split file size has been increased further.

So, increasing the clock rate has a similar effect to increasing the the split file size!!! This is not what I expected at all. Certainly, with the CPU rate set to 21x, I have no problems listening with a split file size of 12MB - it sounds so much more refined than with the CPU rate set to 9x.

The only explanation I can offer is this: With a smaller split file size, data is transferred more often (though in smaller chunks). Maybe more CPU power allows things to settle down more quickly, well before the next data chunk is sent.

Of course, God knows what happens to other things, such as RFI, with increasing CPU rates...

Peter?

Mani.

[AUDIODIDAKT]

I think again, its all about speed,

Did anyone proved that underclocking is better vs more RFI ?!
The faster a pc can handle things, the more time there is to handle the music.

Speed, speed, speed.

Roy

[boleary]

Just a couple more cents......adjusting the split file size has, again, revolutionized my experience of the sound quality that XXHighend is capable of producing. After adjusting the split file size(hereafter called the SFS) to 165mb, I played Patty Griffin's, "Icicles" -from her Impossible Dream CD-for my wife. Her comment was either Patty was somewhere in the entertainment console or she, my wife, was having an LSD experience, something that hasn't happened in 30 years.  

The increase in SQ is really significant, though after spending a few more weeks with it I'm sure area's in need of improvement will emerge too.

I have started to keep track of where the SFS for particular vocalists on  particular cds sounds best,but I only find it necessary to adjust the SFS for that album, not for each track on it. For playlists with multiple vocalists I find a compromise size that works best for all the tracks in the playlist. Though a bit of a compromise it's waaaaaaay better than anything I was listening to ten days ago!  

Has anyone else found that significantly lowering the SFS at moderate and lower volumes helps SQ?

It seems that with Mani's latest discovery increasing the cpu clockrate allows for the converse regarding the SFS. It allows one to lower the SPF and get the same result. However one gets there it is a welcome result and it will be very interesting to see how Peter sorts all this "good stuff" out.

Did I say anything about a tone control recently........

[AUDIODIDAKT]

I think changing the default SFS from 100mb to 60mb would be a good thing,
especially for gapless playback.

What if high cpu speed IS important together with a low SFS.
XX is designed to run on 1 core, thats good if you have a dual core, one for #3Engine, one for windows.
but if you have a quad core can xx run on 2 cores instead of one.

Peter, is it possible to let xx run on 2 cores ?!