Split file size and volume

[Suteetat]

350 MB? That can't work well with upsampling... Maybe with DAP it could work, but certainly not for QAP.  I encourage you to try some very short track, check its file size and set the same SFS. Then compare to your 350MB setting.

Since this thread got started, I have been following a bit and tried various SFS from about 50-400 and I kept coming back to 350.
Generally I use 4x AP with 16/44.1, 2xAP with 88/96 and 1xAP with 176/192. My computer is a dual core 3Ghz with 4GB RAM.
 I don't neccessarily disagree with generalized description of the sound at higher ad lower SFS but how the sound come out will also
depend on the rest of the system as well.

[boleary]

Don't know if its appropriate to ressurect this thread, but there were a lot of interesting ideas in it so what the hell:

Am home today and had a chance for a nice session with XX. Don't know why but it occurred to me (again) that SFS and volume are very interrelated. For the heck of it I set my SFS to 500 and increased the volume between 4 and 6 db depending upon the music. These volume settings were in a range I rarely go cause all gets distorted when playing this loud. However, with a SFS of 500, these high levels sounded very, very good. Reducing volume to a more usual level, but keeping the SFS at 500, things sounded  too woody or muted. Of course, lowering the SFS with the lowered volme brings back that "great sound."

This little exercise got me to wondering if there isn't a "correct" (or approximately correct) SFS for any particular volume level or range of levels, and if there is, or at least seems to be, wouldn't it be great (for those who dislike "fiddling" with too may buttons) if the SFS could be automatically adjusted as volume was increased or decreased? This "setting" would have to be based both on the SPL the music was originally recorded at and the volume you want to use (whether or not wife is in the room, etc) when listening in your living room. The feature could be bypassed (with a button, of course) for those who can't stop fiddling with buttons).

If implemented properly, this could be the "solution" to the SFS "problem". I mean, if volume and SFS are related, there ought to be an accurate SFS setting for each cd and the volume its being played at. Or instead of a specific SFS for each volume it could be set for a range and would change at a certain point that constitute a new range.

Sorry if I've got a bit too much time on my hands and you've just spent a couple of minutes reading a bunch of crazy talk!
 

[juanpmar]

This little exercise got me to wondering if there isn't a "correct" (or approximately correct) SFS for any particular volume level or range of levels...

Probably you are right. I use a SFS of 430 and I noticed that it covers very well a volume range between -36db and -27db. That´s the range I use almost all the time for all my music. With that in mind I realized however that most of the time -33db  is the perfect volume level, but is that due to the acoustical condition of my listening room and to my system (amps/loudspeakers)?, or it is due only or mostly to the SFS setting?. Probably all the parts are important and related.

wouldn't it be great (for those who dislike "fiddling" with too may buttons) if the SFS could be automatically adjusted as volume was increased or decreased? This "setting" would have to be based both on the SPL the music was originally recorded at and the volume you want to use...

I really don´t know if that would be easy to do or even if that would be possible, but wouldn´t it be easier to choose the best sounding SFS setting for the most usual volume level and vary the volume a little depending on the album?. For me at least this way works well.

However I must agree with you that this is a relevant issue and that there are important differences in SQ with a certain SFS at different volume levels.

Best regards,
Juan

[PeterSt]

Hi there,

Although this topic is somewhat longer and it perfectly anounces what could be going on in the first post, I don't even recall I ever dove into this, or really put some attention to it for that matter. Most probably this is because the SFS was a sort of mystery at that time, me not having a clue what was going on with it. Okay, that didn't change all the way per today, but at least we have spades of more experience now and me too understand some things more.

I don't know ...


As implied above, judging the technical merits of the SFS already is a difficult task, and combining it with the amount of attenuation - it is hard to dig for me. However, that you will be perceiving what you do is without doubt.

I never noticed anything with this (combination as described), but that could well be because I am not changing levels so much. I tend to play as loud as comfort depicts, and for example this is never late night listening people being asleep. So this may matter.

Reading about this, my theories would go in the direction of "distortion" being there in the first place, which can be influenced by the SFS. So, whatever its merits are, it should be a smoothening factor when set to lower values. So, there's logic in that to me;

There's also logic in the lower Volume settings encouraging for higher distortion. This is pure theory and is talked about more often, then thinking about the more digital attenuation the more bits we loose etc. etc. *If* that is true net is a very different matter, but for argument's sake let's say that is so.

Now, next it would be obvious and logic that when the lower SFS values encourage for more smoothing - but which is distortion by itself, the additional distortion caused by more digital attenuation is a sort of counter attacked (by the smoothing). Thus, looking at it from this angle, thing would nicely fit.
But then of course I made up a story around what exhibits; not much scientific that is ...

When I only look at myself and what I notice from things, I don't see it happening, but I also don't try. All I know is that you have to have a feeling for an SFS which can to be too high (that squeezing the OS which runs out of memory without you telling) and when you stay under those virtual limits, sound is the best. So, from this comes a 430 while 500 would be possible. Exceed this limit and sound will get stressy, and don't ask me whether that gets different when changing the Volume. I'd rather not know, and I wouldn't like the tweaking. But ok, when this would be an automized job things would be different regarding this, of course.

But as I say it all the time lately, it *has* to be a moot thing all over, when first other distortions are there, and you have those. I can't guarantee that they get out of your way with 0.9z-7, but at least you should try. The worse what can happen is that the less distortion behavior is 10 x better than your worst setting of now. And next the same "issue" can emerge. But, that seems unlikely when whatever smoothing factor is currently applicable for counter attack, when the distortion is inherently there.

Btw, today still (0.9z-7), I'm sure that the higher SFS is the better one, but it is a sort of overruled by "that" other new setting which exaggerates much more of something else which already was good for NOS1 users. By 40 times to be more precise. So, think like being able to set the SFS 40 times higher than now, and imagine it would extend the good exhibits of the higher value SFS from today.

So, wait a bit again ?
But sure don't forget to come back on this one, when 0.9z-7 is sorted out somewhat on your side.

Happy waiting !
Peter

[PeterSt]

In the mean time though ...

I have been listening to about the same songs (nicely short, always Beatles) at testing stuff and ended up with figuring out the limits of certain settings and what I should prevent you to dial in (because of anomalies might happen). Then ...

I tried some "under limit" which comes down to a 0.9z-6 setting you can apply today, and it is (at least for NOS1 users) a Device Buffer Size of 4096, Q1 = 15 and SFS = 2.
Suddenly John Lennon began to sing the most musical ...

Not all will be the same at your side, but maybe you should try it. It's not such an obvious combination ...

And oh, might it matter, I have the OSD Running Time active as well (not the Bar type).

And ehh ... this should be a pure smoothening factor as how I meant it. Maybe of the type which is not equal all the time (think of how "musicality" emerges).

Have fun,
Peter

[stefanobilliani]

Hi Peter and All ,

I have a question regarding the buffer size .
The device ( M-Audio , Fast Trackpro ) has the latency slider seletcable from 128 to 4096 .
From a forum I did read a thing about a 2x "effect" on the latency settings ( which I didn't quite understand ) so after that trying the XXHighEnd trik , I did try to verify the latency of the device by the means of that method .
Then to 128 buffer size , Adaptive Mode and Q1=0 there is some buffer error ( audible ) but without XX telling me .
Letting the M-Audio buffer to 128 and encreasing the buffersize on XX to the next level , 256 , it does plays without audible errors .
This until reaching say 1024 or less , I believe .

Should I conclude that I have to consider the buffer size of my device with a "2X" on the XX side?

Thanks

stefano

PS : will 09-z7 include the button Arc Predict and PeakExtend ?

 

[stefanobilliani]

In the mean time though ...



I tried some "under limit" which comes down to a 0.9z-6 setting you can apply today, and it is (at least for NOS1 users) a Device Buffer Size of 4096, Q1 = 15 and SFS = 2.
Suddenly John Lennon began to sing the most musical ...

Not all will be the same at your side, but maybe you should try it. It's not such an obvious combination ...

And oh, might it matter, I have the OSD Running Time active as well (not the Bar type).

And ehh ... this should be a pure smoothening factor as how I meant it. Maybe of the type which is not equal all the time (think of how "musicality" emerges).

Have fun,
Peter

Hi Peter ,

did try your setting last night , and it was very much more musical . I did listen to "steely dan - alive in america " and " Ed Motta - Poptical " among other albums .

Only one thing was that it didn't play the complete album , instead it stopped it randomly at the end of the second track or fouth track and so .
My settings were in unattended , minimized , and running time .

s

[PeterSt]

Should I conclude that I have to consider the buffer size of my device with a "2X" on the XX side?

Stefano,

Hoping that I understood the question well :

Whether the Device Buffer Size is set to 128 and Q1 to 2 or 256 and Q1 to 1 makes no difference; the result is the same.

What I would not do though, is setting Q1 to 0 or even lower. The result will be unpredictable and actually this is not made for Kernel Streaming but for WASAPI (I now realize that maybe there should be a protection for using it with KS).

Only one thing was that it didn't play the complete album , instead it stopped it randomly at the end of the second track or fouth track and so .

2MB is rather low and the PC must be somewhat faster to cope with it. The allowed 0.2 works sometimes with my own PC, but sometimes not. I think 1MB is reliable for me, but it's a long time ago that I really tested it.
Furthermore I can't compare the situation of 0.9z6 with z7 because so many things changed, but I played with 2MB for many (happy) hours yesterday without any glitch.

will 09-z7 include the button Arc Predict and PeakExtend ?

Of course !

Regards,
Peter

[stefanobilliani]

Stefano,

Hoping that I understood the question well :

Whether the Device Buffer Size is set to 128 and Q1 to 2 or 256 and Q1 to 1 makes no difference; the result is the same.

What I would not do though, is setting Q1 to 0 or even lower. The result will be unpredictable and actually this is not made for Kernel Streaming but for WASAPI (I now realize that maybe there should be a protection for using it with KS).

Great , so is understandable that we will not use KS and Q1=0 for the latency test .

2MB is rather low and the PC must be somewhat faster to cope with it. The allowed 0.2 works sometimes with my own PC, but sometimes not. I think 1MB is reliable for me, but it's a long time ago that I really tested it.
Furthermore I can't compare the situation of 0.9z6 with z7 because so many things changed, but I played with 2MB for many (happy) hours yesterday without any glitch.


Regards,
Peter

Yeah !

:-)

[PeterSt]

Btw, especially for our American friends :

At some stage I learned that the term "musical" or maybe "Musicality" is understood differently in the US than it is in the rest of the world. We, overhere, know it from being 2 years old that this is about how sound turns into music. Hard to explain, but maybe when something sounds more musical it sounds more vibrant. Also we dedicate more "performing for you" to it.

Maybe others can explain it better.

Peter

[boleary]

Btw, today still (0.9z-7), I'm sure that the higher SFS is the better one, but it is a sort of overruled by "that" other new setting which exaggerates much more of something else which already was good for NOS1 users. By 40 times to be more precise. So, think like being able to set the SFS 40 times higher than now, and imagine it would extend the good exhibits of the higher value SFS from today.

So, wait a bit again ?
But sure don't forget to come back on this one, when 0.9z-7 is sorted out somewhat on your side.

I've been amazed by this quote since you wrote it! Please, please, please provide for my American ears the definition of the word bit. Cause over here it means the briefest passage of time......

[PeterSt]

Haha, you audio freak. The definition for us is simple :

A time period of a bit is defined by the sample rate. Look :

One stereo sample through your NOS1 consists of 2 x 32 bits. So, that is 64 bits (btw, this is equal to 8 bytes). All your samples are this long.
But what is the sample rate you use ? That's up to you.

Mine is up to me.

Clear ?

[Robert]

I tried some "under limit" which comes down to a 0.9z-6 setting you can apply today, and it is (at least for NOS1 users) a Device Buffer Size of 4096, Q1 = 15 and SFS = 2.
Suddenly John Lennon began to sing the most musical ...

Only one thing was that it didn't play the complete album , instead it stopped it randomly at the end of the second track or fouth track and so .
My settings were in unattended , minimized , and no running time .

I've tried these settings and yes found them to be more musical but suffered from the same result as stefanobilliani.

I have changed SFS to 20 and it now plays all the tracks on an album.

[PeterSt]

I never went back. See my sig ...


Peter

[stefanobilliani]

I never went back. See my sig ...


Peter

I guess all the *...* are new features ...