9-Z3

[PeterSt]

Wouldn't it be much easier to provide bass, treble and loudness controls ? ok, with balance as a bonus.
Hahaha

But it seems to be true that at least we can get back the forwardness a little which disappeared with Vista largely. I noticed it too, but like the "level" of it. But as I noticed earlier : too much goes along with roughness (or edgyness) and the other way around.

It also seems true to me that if one thing is "problematic" it's the bass. And again I have the feeling that Engine#3 should be involved more (to find the optimum). It never works out well when I try, but still ...

Juan, thanks.

Peter


PS: I'm not sure whether I must be disappointed about the SFS still influencing, or whether it's some (not all that) fine tuner of which I wouldn't be able to find that "one" good setting anyway ...

[boleary]

Through my speakers, I can't listen to SFS.ini = 21, or indeed 11. They're both just too much... too edgy (a bit like having the SFS set too low with earlier XX versions). And taking the SFS value as high as I can doesn't seem to help with 11 or 21.

So, with my speakers, I'm back to SFS.ini = 00 and the SFS value set to ~65. Also, curiously, I quite like the sound of Scheme 4 - very 'organic' and laid back... a bit like vinyl.

This has been largely my experience too, though I haven't tried Scheme 4. I also find that Z2 is generally fuller sounding, but less forward, than Z3 set to 00. Mani, have you compared your current Z3 setting to your older Z2 setting? Would like to see what you think about that comparison.

Gave Z3 a good listen again last night. On many tracks it did have that "removing of a veil" quality but, after a while, like the initial impression of setting the SFS very low in Z2, it started sounding too thin. I then went back to Z2 with a sfs of 100 and received that fatter sound that is so pleasing to me when listening to the women's voices (say what you will Peter, its okay  ). I want to go back and listen to Z3 again with the ini set to 00 and compare it again to Z2.

Another thing that I've noticed about SFS is that I don't have to change it as often as I used to when I had the laptop. Changing to a desktop seemed to make its effect "deeper", more consistent with varying types of music.

PS: I'm not sure whether I must be disappointed about the SFS still influencing, or whether it's some (not all that) fine tuner of which I wouldn't be able to find that "one" good setting anyway ...

From the beginning SFS has seemed to me to be that "fine tuner" that would be influenced by everything, like even the quality of the mic used to make the recording, as well as the range and type of frequencies particular to each singer. (Patty Griffin requires a setting way higher than any other singer I've listened to) Thus, I will say once again, lets put the adjuster for sfs on the face of the GUI for instant access. I wouldn't feel disappointed about it still influencing, Peter, because it may be a kind of fundamental discovery that, however you "solve" it, helps to keep your player better than anything else out there!

[Telstar]

I'm usually slow at changing version and posting comments.

I did as hort A/B between z2 and z3 and the latter IS better, more pleasant overall. Both on the dararam ramsidk, only difference SFS at 90mb with z1 and 200 mb (11) with z3.
Loading the first track takes 3-4 seconds, a bit annoying for my SO, but worth it.

On the other pc i stick with z2 because i need to use it for other stuff when listening to music and z3 make it unresponsive at any track change.

I'm updating my signature.

[CoenP]

After a lot of experimenting to find the z3 sweet spot I noticed the following:

Regardless of SFS.ini setting, the difference between 'copy to XX disc first' on and off is very small. Actually I like it better when off. This is very welcome with my limited memory (only XX on the RAMDISC).

When switching the SFS.ini or any other setting I tried, you have to optimise SFS each time. Sometime it is hard to nail down SFS between to high and to low.

I feel SFS.ini setting 00 has the most explicitly detailed and natural presentation of all, albeit sounding still a little 'thin' overall.

Still the best experience of 'not listening to the sound anymore' is obtained with z2, music from ramdisc and 'copy XX..' ticked on. There is subtile timing and dynamics information revealed that makes a connection to the music very easy.
Playing music from ramdisc with z3 (00) does not lead to the same results (unfortunately). Typical soundwise difference is that the instruments in z2 sound a little 'clothed' and less resolving compared to the 'nudity' of z3. It looks like it is a trade-off, for now I prefer the convenience of z3, being able to play long playlists.

The vsuite ramdisc (direct IO) seems a little smoother than the dataram one, quite a subtile difference though.

regards, Coen

[Flecko]

My "final" setting is sfs.ini=01. 11 and 21 is to sharp and focused on the highs. sfs=150. I went up from Buffer32 q1=6 to Buffer=512 q1=1 to bring the highs down which were just to focused. I meanwhile tried adaptive but it doesn't bring that power in the bass and the defined highs of special. I now prefer scheme 1 too.

[Raj.V]

I usually play unattended with "Copy to XX_drive..." option but without (Do not start playback...") as I am not keen on the "Do not start Playback..." option.

In the release notes if you use "Do not start playback... " option then it is to be used together with "Copy to XX-drive...".

However, recently I have been playing unattended with only the "Do not start the playback..." option without "Copy to XX-Drive..." and this sounds really good. I would say "spiritual" in my system.

I have been playing with .wav files (44.1 -> 176.4 with AP).

It would be great if some of you can check this.
Hope to hear some feedback

Raj

[PeterSt]

Haha Raj - This needs a kind of reverse thinking;

So, what happens is that with playing .wav files (those only !!) you skip the part of copying to the RAMDrive (that assumed, also looking at your signature), you use "Do not start" which does exactly nothing in this case (no conversions because of .wav), and at Alt-P the track is not taken from the RAMDisk but from its original location (which presumeably is a normal spinning disk).

Well ... this is all the other way around (from RAMDisk thinking) of course, and the only thing I can come up with for an explanation is that the additional process of copying may influence (nevertheless you use Alt-P to start) - and which process/influence just is not there now.
I think this would be similar to those perceiving a difference between .wav and .flac, while .flac incurs for such a process again (very similar to copying), while .wav just avoids that. This difference should be eliminated completely when playing via the RAMDisk *and* using the Alt-P thing, which mathematically may lead to using .wav and doing nothing being even better. Still in that case the spinning disk is involved, which may matter by itself (not that I ever heard that, but which is different from an SSD being there, influencing on its own as it seems).



Peter

[pedal]

9-Z3 is a breakthrough.

For the first time I feel I really get under the skin of digital music.
It's sooo organic from top to bottom, without sacrificing anything in regards of detail, image or dynamics.
-On the contrary, I feel the "organic element" ADD to the instrumental detail and microdynamics.
Bass sounds more analogue (in a positive sense!), more "true".
I see that some mentions "artifical" treble, but that is not the case in my system. On the contrary - it is just "perfect"!

This in comparison with 9-Z2.

Still I have not converted to RAM or Vista.

I have not updated my signature yet, but final settings tonight seems to be:
SFS = 140 [about 50 less than max]
SFS.ini = Default [I dont understand how to do... Pls someone spoon feed me]
Adaptive Mode/Buffer 1024
Scheme = 1
Dialing Q1 from 1 to 4 tided up the bass somewhat.

Thanks Peter!

BTW: How did the cabinet paint turn out? Are you on schedule?

[PeterSt]

Nice Pedal, especially if this is with W7 !!

The SFS.ini can be edited with e.g. NotePad (and which value does what is in the Release Notes I think).

Peter


PS: If all goes as promised the cabinets are here next Tuesday. Then I hope to be happy about the paint. So, never seen it yet.

[Chriss]

The SFS.ini can be edited with e.g. NotePad (and which value does what is in the Release Notes I think).

Search in your XXHighEnd folder (in c:\program files\... or whatever you install XX)  for SFS.ini file. First two numbers are the key.
Chriss.

[ivo]

So, finally I tweaked my Vista until it almost died, but not yet

I noticed an interesting phenomena: the more tweaked the OS is the less I feel differences among things like SFS.ini values, SFS sizes, buffer and Q1 values.

Has anyone else felt the same?

My current preferences are:
SFS.ini=11, SFS=175, FLACs in Ramdisk (I still feel this the best option) Special mode, buffer=384, Q1=8.

Ivo

[Chriss]

...FLACs in Ramdisk (I still feel this the best option)...

Ivo
If I understood you right...you prefere FLACs rather than Wav?
Chriss.

[PeterSt]

What Ivo will mean is that he prefers copying the FLAC files to the RAMDisk, and play them from there. This, compared to play them from their Original Location, let XX copy the .WAV to the RAMDisk and play (with or without postponing Playback after the .WAVs have been copied to the RAMDisk (and next use Alt-P Unattended)).

So what Ivo does, is copy the FLAC manually to the RAMDisk, let XX convert them from there to WAVs on the RAMDisk again (not necessarily, but he will be doing that I think), and next follow the same procedure.

If that helps for better sound it is time to eat a hat or something ...

[ivo]

Exactly as Peter described.
Also, I feel that is not convenient to press Alt+P when XX disappears to start playback.

Peter: One thing from whishlist: Can you add a small feature that allows to shut down the PC after the playback is over. The use case is that I sometimes listen to music and fall asleep until morning, so would be nice that XX box also gets some rest Do not know why but my tweaked Vista has no Sleep function???

Ivo

[Telstar]

Peter: One thing from whishlist: Can you add a small feature that allows to shut down the PC after the playback is over. The use case is that I sometimes listen to music and fall asleep until morning, so would be nice that XX box also gets some rest Do not know why but my tweaked Vista has no Sleep function???

Ivo

Why your tweaked vista has no sleep? Try to add it, it's very useful.
I never shut down my dedicated pc, sleep all the time. This also solves the problem of the SLOW save image on shutdown of the ramdisc (which i have disabled).