0.9z-4-0

[Flecko]

It is tricky. Because with ramdisk, there are more fine highs. You could think, it has more air or more resolution. Without, it sounds a little darker. You might think, the highs are damped in comparison to ramdisk. But, listenning to the right record, it can be realized what is going on. I used "trio bravo +" "menschen am sonntag". Here the difference becomes noticable and judgeable. With ramdisk, there is more "air" but in comparison to no ramdisk this air seems more to be a fog. Without ramdisk, every instrument is better defined and there is more space between the instruments because there is less of this "air" or you could call it hf noise. The whole sound is not so bright. Microdynamics are better. It is not easy to judge, because there are records you can think it is the other way round. But I still would say, it is better without ramdisk.

[PeterSt]

Adrian, careful now, it looks like yo are going to write like me ! haha I love it.

Yesterday I was at a point of trying again without RAMDisk after changing some things in the software, actually heading for the "without RAMDisk should be better". I didn't because I loved the sound too much plus I need the proper judgement. But I will.
I only want to say : you are sure not talking to yourself here.

Thank you,
Peter

[boleary]

Well, I didn't think it was possible with the hiface, but I'm currently playing in Special Mode, buffer 32 with 1 sample of latency (Q1 @-3), per the X3b lof file. This is by far the most amazing sound I've ever gotten from XX. Its as though there a several layers of mid range that now accompany the treble like never before. Last night I was playing Bonnie Raitt's, "Love Me Like a Man", the live version from her "Road Tested" album, when my wife walked into the room. She amazed me when she said it was the best sound she's heard. According to her, " Its doesn't hurt my brain, though it still hurts my ears cause you play it way too loud." Go figure......

Am still playing in Mixed Continuous cause straight is just too finicky here. All my current settings are below.

[Flecko]

My sanity is highly endangered. I am playing without ramdisk at the moment and I thougt, try z2 from harddrive again. It was an old setup I had on my harddrive. It was still set to adaptive mode. I pressed play and it hit me like a lightning. It can't be. But it seems it is...Before I say what I will say later, I sum up how "we" or "I" proceeded:
There was z2 and adaptive mode as "common standard".Then ramdisk was in discussion. We checked it out and then it was z2 with ramidsk and special mode. Then came z3 with sfs.ini, which turned out, I would say, to be not good. Now it is z4, again with memory management. Then it seems, ramdisk does no good and it is better without. Now being back to the harddrive it seems...z2 was the best xx we had. Maybe I am, or we "all" are a case for the psychiatrist. But the background is realy black with z2. No background noise like from z4 and no harshness like from z3. It is just the closest to how it should sound.
z4 still has an outstanding resolution in the highs. They are very fine and well expressed. But there is very much of them, so that it fills every part in space with this "noise". The background looses its blackness because of that. I think z4 has potential but z2 should be a reference where z4 is tuned to, because z2 adaptive is closer to reality and better in most aspects (coherence, dynamics, balance, tonality, color, 3Dness, solid instruments,...).

[Scroobius]

Just loaded 0.9-4-0. WOW Peter what did you do? it sounds way better than 3 on my system. Everything is better I mean everything (detail dynamics base quality everything). I have not changed the setup it is just as it came "out of the box". I will have a play with the settings but only after I have listened to it for a while and got used to the new sound quality. I am using a laptop with limited resources. I use W7 (not SP1) which is very very cut down (comes on a CD).

Going to be a late night!!

Scroobs

[PeterSt]

My sanity is highly endangered.

Hi Adrian, I was a bit afraid of that ... (reading your before last post). I think you *are* experiencing HF noise ...
(but please keep in mind that I derive this from your own description, and it is tough to have it correct on my side)

With the morte high frequency output, there is more change that that smears. Or better, that it becomes profound. So *or* you must try to get those frequencies "isolated", or you must lower them for volume. Of course we are not talking about treble knobs here, so for the latter Vista comes to mind. For the former ? well, not easy. I would start out with Arc Prediction (and I hope / have in mind you are not using that) to at least find out whether the filtering as such is the problem.

From whatever you find, I would start to wiggle the further "controls" on your DAC in the filtering area. Try to understand what you hear. Try to derive from other merits what actually is going on (example : Vista sounds relaxed for highs, but has an improper bass at the same time. Conclusion ? it's wrong).

As you see, I won't admit quickly that 0.z9-2 is better. But ! I didn't listen to it either anymore, and back then I sure never listened to the combination from today.
So ... What I am missing in your post is how you actually played it (settings, OS, etc.); Your posts starts out with ancouncing the description of that, but it looks like you forgot ?
In any case, back then you too won't have been playing with 0.9z-2 onto W7-SP1, so if it is that what you just did, well, then I have not much reason to not believe you and I guess everybody could re-try.

Peter


PS: When AI Filtering was introduced (AP didn't exist at that moment), I listened to that for two months or so. Wow, that was black. Later I found out that it was a dead bird as well. Just not enough detail in everything. But black ...

[PeterSt]

I know it might sound crazy, but I had a significant increase of warmth and width (fatter?) playing Z4 in Special Mode, when I unticked "Stop Services". Almost took me back to Z2.

I just quoted this from this very topic for our own reference ...
Maybe it tells something.

[Flecko]

With the morte high frequency output, there is more change that that smears. Or better, that it becomes profound. So *or* you must try to get those frequencies "isolated", or you must lower them for volume. Of course we are not talking about treble knobs here, so for the latter Vista comes to mind. For the former ? well, not easy. I would start out with Arc Prediction (and I hope / have in mind you are not using that) to at least find out whether the filtering as such is the problem.

From whatever you find, I would start to wiggle the further "controls" on your DAC in the filtering area. Try to understand what you hear. Try to derive from other merits what actually is going on (example : Vista sounds relaxed for highs, but has an improper bass at the same time. Conclusion ? it's wrong).

I know that a higher level in the highs, gives a defocus (smearing) effect. That is, what comes from z4. It is verry accurate in the highs and you hear everything what happens. This is a quality, that z2 doesn't have. But on the other hand, z4 sounds thin compared to z2. The msuic doesn't fill the room as massive. There is more air but less space.

The hardware side of my dac was also upgraded. Installed the new DSP1V5 board with improved filters. I studied the dipswiched intensly with the new and the old board. It is still, that the steepest filter with the highest oversampling sounds best. It is even worse I use asynchronous upsampling to 96khz/24bit of my Digital Interface. This could be the reason why I hear more highs, because it sounds brighter but also better.
I also can not use arpred with doubling anymore, because my DI doesn't allow that samplerate. But just checking AP with 44.1 doesn't sound good.

As you see, I won't admit quickly that 0.z9-2 is better. But ! I didn't listen to it either anymore, and back then I sure never listened to the combination from today.

I realy don't expect that from you.

My OS settings are:
W7 SP1
Tune up 2011 Turbo mode
UAC off

The z2 thing is, that it was THE version of xx I just used after a very short setup time. Z3 for example I tuned the whole time I used it. I got it sound great with ramdisk but you know, there where also complaints about its sound from different people. And now, comparing it to z2 without ramdisk and with my new hardware, which is defenitly better, I can understand. Saying, that z2 sounds better than z4, doesn't mean z4 isn't great. z2 just seems to sound more like what I am looking for. But I don't want to talk to much about it. Maybe this evening it will be the other way round. It could be the sound of z2 (like vinyl), that makes people like. The difficult question is, does some version sounds better or is it realy better? I asked my girlfriend what she likes more as I showed her z4 with and without ramdisk. She spontaniously said, she liked the version with ramdisk better. But as I asked her what she hears, she discribed what I hear too. And I can understand why she likes it, but I say it is not better.

In any case, back then you too won't have been playing with 0.9z-2 onto W7-SP1, so if it is that what you just did, well, then I have not much reason to not believe you and I guess everybody could re-try.

Never used it in this configuration before. It could be, that ramdisk was a mistake, that lead in to the wrong direction. Some double checking would be alright.

[PeterSt]

Ok, just FYI :

I can easily revert to the 0.9z-2 (z-1) code, but I don't think it will be a good idea for these reasons (and I just read through the "SQ" topics from it) :

1. It is there where we gave up on Native W7;

2. It is there where we started to put RAMDisks in the chain to (maybe ??) solve something which was wrong in the first place (also see 1).

3. It is there were we started to find out that the SFS matters. And maybe most of everything.

Even when we could leave 1. and 2. behind us (because all is better in W7-SP1 now), 3 will still be the subject, and it is only solved in 0.9z-4 (not in 0.9z-3). But solved how ? that is the question ...

a. half of you can't even get it playing as intended because of a lack of sufficient memory;
b. it's hardly under your control because it's too difficult to understand;
c. too many variations exist and in combination with b. you just won't get there.

Add to this that signals really are there that the RAMDisk may not be good at all - and if you think we can sort of rap it up now, at least I moved away from the SSD and have no intention to move it back in again.

Too many variables, and too many things which are not easy to try.
One thing must be clear though : by now it is well understood why the SFS mattered in the past - as it is understood that theoretically -as how it is now (0.9z-4)) the larger it is, the better it is. This immediately conflicts with the RAMDisk (size), the amount of RAM itself, and the possibility to ever create a large SFS to begin with.

So you see, there are quite come conflicting phenomena going on right now, and I'm working hard myself to eliminate a few of these "dimensions". RAMDisk in or RAMDisk out ? that would be a first one which can solve a lot (when it can be left out). Theories say Out, but ears say In.

Next there's the now new "over the top" thing (my own subject). RAMDisk In seems to solve it, but personally I refuse to believe this really is about "over the top". I don't like smoothening (or filtering) and nobody should. I rather hear (from you) that W7-SP1 is wrong afterall, and without RAMDisk ... it actually is. Stupid thing is : I can't much discover where, apart from getting crazy of transients.
My guts tell me that I need a Vista-64 implementation so I can have enough RAM to use Straight Contiguous (which with Vista-32 just won't work here either).

Please don't get me wrong : I am really 100% satisfied at this moment, and only two (really major) things bother me :

1. I don't like the RAMDisk as a smoothening factor, never mind it brings great sound;
2. It seems to me that too few people are there who are able to contribute at the same level as others.

Ad 2.
Meaning : Many people can't get Straight Contiguous to run, and if they can it's with a (very) small SFS only, and in the end it is all apples and oranges. The other way around : those being able to use Straight Contiguous won't even try Mixed Contiguous (I bet). This includes myself ...
NOT GOOD.

So ... I'm now even thinking about a next trial version and leaving out Straight Contiguous on purpose;
The real difference between Straight C. and Mixed C. isn't large anyway (to my theories that is), while Mixed *does* allow a fair amount of SFS even in Vista-32, it will even allow for a RAMDisk going along with it, while the most imporant (I think) is : the size of the SFS *does* matter a lot. So it really is about that, and not about the "straight" thing. The latter just works contraproductive to it all.

Yep, my mind is set;
There will be a 0.9z-4-1, and it will contain Mixed and Mixed Contiguous, plus at least one new trick I'm applying myself the last few days. I won't tell what it is, but it will give you the legit thinking that Straight C. just won't be needed, because now all sounds better in the first place.
If next, people are still in doubt, at least it will be a unanimous thing (hopefully). Then we go back (perhaps to some degree).
When not, it will probably go the other way around : we'll start injecting 8Gigs of memory and implement 64 bit OSes.

I hope this is a good plan;
And I know, at this moment there should be too few people complaining to ever take the effort. But you know, one is enough really.

Peter

[Suteetat]

Peter, I will be waiting to hear your latest trick
As I already stated in the past, in my system straight contiguous with large SFS sounds significantly better than mixed
continguous with same SFS. I also find smaller SFS to sound inferior to larger SFS (at least to my ears, in my system anyhow).
For one, I would not like to see SC left out of next version but would like to see how your next trick is compared to SC rather than
just mixed/mc.

[PeterSt]

my system straight contiguous with large SFS sounds significantly better than mixed continguous with same SFS.

It sure does not harm to emphasize this, and I sure will keep it in mind.
Thank you,
Peter

[crisnee]

Way too many options  Nevertheless here's my dubious opinion.

Z4 seems to sound best for me with no ramdisk, in adaptive mode using either SC 12 sfs, or MC with 150 sfs. I give the very slightest edge to SC for slightly less edginess  . But that's after enduring a lot of edginess caused by fiddling with all the options.

For what it's worth, I did a very limited test for the above. I used several tracks from Fleetwood Mac, Tusk. "Think About Me," "Save me a Place," and one or two others. They have very hot over-saturated? highs which seemed to come through most bearably and clearly with my chosen settings, while still keeping the great sound stage, separation (air) and balance.

As to comparing it with earlier versions of XX, I'm not going there. Earlier versions (when I was able to get them to run consistently) sounded very good at times, maybe as good, maybe better? How will we ever really know with all the variables, options, continuing updates of OS and software, arghh! Not to mention that we don't listen to common music, double arghh!

Isn't there some way we could just upload a bunch of tracks to an area (can we upload them as attachments Peter?) How about this. Everyone uploads a track or two without name or artist (eg file1, file2 in flac format) that they think is good for testing making sure we get a variety of types rock, acoustic, classical, piano, synth, heavy metal, voice etc. Then we at least pair down variables somewhat. Without names and uploading just one track per album should also make the copyright/pirating thing pretty much irrelevant.

By the way, this edition of XX has been the most stable for me contrary to all dire warnings. I've even been able to switch back and forth between SC and MC without rebooting as long as I reduced the SFS size for SC. I kept it running without any reboots for at least 4 days when using MC, a record for any version of XX for me.

Chris

 

[manisandher]

I'm currently listening to SFS=100, Straight Contiguous and Clock Resolution=Nothing (with all other parameters as in my sig) and it's sounding pretty good here. But lots more listening required to make any real judgements.

Having lived with Peter's settings for a while, I'm now back to pretty much where I started. Ultimately I really missed the dynamics of Adaptive. SC and SFS=100 give me a pretty nice smooth sound.

Mani.

[Chriss]

hmm ini=21 on mani sign. Is there ini's on z4?
Criss.

[Flecko]

As to comparing it with earlier versions of XX, I'm not going there. Earlier versions (when I was able to get them to run consistently) sounded very good at times, maybe as good, maybe better? How will we ever really know with all the variables, options, continuing updates of OS and software, arghh! Not to mention that we don't listen to common music, double arghh!

Isn't there some way we could just upload a bunch of tracks to an area (can we upload them as attachments Peter?) How about this. Everyone uploads a track or two without name or artist (eg file1, file2 in flac format) that they think is good for testing making sure we get a variety of types rock, acoustic, classical, piano, synth, heavy metal, voice etc. Then we at least pair down variables somewhat. Without names and uploading just one track per album should also make the copyright/pirating thing pretty much irrelevant.

I tryed to started a project like this here. There was positive response but nobody except me uploaded something You can have my testset or share some files of your library.

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1489.0

I tested z2 again. This time I compared to z4 MC set to SFS=100. I used the same parameter setting for both versions. You can  look them up in my signature. Still z4 has very nice highs. There are more highs. But, and this is a big BUT, it doesnt sound right if you listen to z2. It reminds me a little on my CD-Transports. I had a Pioneer PD-S06 and a highly modifed Pioneer PD-S707. If you compared them side by side, you got to like the PD-S06, because it has a very pleasent sound. Soft "golden" highs creating a nice atmosphere. You could relax and enjoy the music. The PD-S707 had a different sound. The highs were not so soft. Also more silver then golden. At first, it sounds a little harder in the highs but if you listen to it longer, you knew what was right and wrong. The modifed PD-S707 put solid instruments in the room, there was space between them. Every note has a weight. It was better without question. But turning back to the PD-S06, I always thought: "It sounds so nice! (But it is not right)".
And that is what is going on with z4. There are plenty "golden" highs. You get impressed by the details you receive without being nerved. It is a enjoyable sound. Z2 is not so soft and has more silver highs. But if you listen to it, you see that it provides are "real" clarity that is not there with z4. There is suddenly space between the instruments. The musicians come a step closer to you with more presence and body. Also the whole sound is more dynamically.

I can easily revert to the 0.9z-2 (z-1) code, but I don't think it will be a good idea for these reasons (and I just read through the "SQ" topics from it) :

I think the only way to find out, is to listen to it. It wont take long to recognise what is going on. As I said, it hit me like a lightning.