SFS Sound Quality Experiences

[Scroobius]

I would be interested in the experience of others. I am currently running with SFS=20. However, until recently I was running with SFS=430 and the reason was that the sound was edgy and I used SFS=430 to "smooth" the sound.

Now that the sound quality is sorted out (see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2299.0) I find that SFS=20 sounds better but probably not by that much.

So the question - do others find that when everything is working correctly smaller SFS (and related Q1 settings) are better. So a smaller buffer is better provided that everything is working correctly?

Paul

[manisandher]

I went away from an SFS setting of 430 a while ago and nowadays choose between either 2 or 60. With my regular setup it tends to be 60, just to take a slight edge off the sound. If I replace the anti-cables with other LS/IC cables or bypass the AC regenerator, I tend to switch to 2 because the sound is a bit too dull otherwise.

Mani.

[juanpmar]

I was using also SFS 2, 60, 320 and 430. SFS 2 was my preferred one with the previous 0.9z-6 version but now I use SFS 60 for the best SQ. The sound is less dry than with 2 and it is also very detailed. I have to say however that before I was using the WD5003ABYX as Playback Drive the sound at 60 was a little dull and softer. Now with this hdd I find it perfect at SFS 60. I use the WD5003ABYX externally powered and I connect it directly to the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCI Express Card. I also use PeakExtend ON. All of these things together are what make a sound so good.

Juan

[boleary]

Any SFS setting higher than 10 here causes the music to sound muffled. I usually just leave it at 2, though once in a while I set it a bit higher. Here the music sounds so frickin' natural and not hard edged at these low settings. Am pretty sure that unplugging all other drives is part of the reason. For example, everytime I forget to unpluug the optical drive after ripping, it always sound hard edged at a low SFS setting.

[Scroobius]

Hey Boleary - thanks very useful I had forgotten to unplug my CD drive which I have now just done. So now I can run at lower SFS settings generally SFS=10 is now best but lower for good recordings. So thanks that is another step forward.

Paul

[CoenP]

I haven't played with sfs since the latest version, but I agree with Booleary on the lower settings. Somehow the sweetspot in my system seems to be 8. Neither lower nor higher reaps any benefits (that is my view of course).

I keep usb free of devices ánd no smps adapters in the powerrail for optimum sq. The adapters rob the low end and natural midsof the sound.

Regards, Coen

[Scroobius]

I agree SFS 5 to 10 is about right in my system now. Listening to a number of different albums this afternoon (even some difficult & poor recordings) and no problem it sounds fine. I have not heard this level of detail before that is so easy to listen to.

So disconnecting the CD drive makes this difference? wow.

I have USB 2 and 3 on the motherboard disabled in BIOS with just USB 3 (for NOS1) on a PCi extender card enabled (thanks for that one Nick!) and that made a big difference.

P

[boleary]

So disconnecting the CD drive makes this difference? wow.

Thank Nick for this one too. 

[Scroobius]

what is surprising is how much difference a change of just 1 in SFS makes at the lower values.

[PeterSt]

A small word from my hand :

Yes, I think it is true that the lower the SFS the better it gets. Mind you, as it seems;

When things are not OK, the lower SFS will exhibit a too fresh sound, up to annoying when you play loud. I name this : it bites too much. So, high transients get to profound.

Notice that it is very delicate to call it a measure. So, this is because it is empirically found, well, by me at least. Only, and only when we "all" could come to the explicit conclusion that we improved our system for noise sources, this allows the lower SFS and really *all* gets better from it, it will be a rule; personally I think it is too early for this.

I also think it will be very dangerous to judge an SFS of 2 to be better. In my view (from the perspective of what happens inside) it can't. Still it can exhibit like better, but now it is subjective to what speakers do. And to have a hopefully more objective opinion about *that* - ask Mani. So, he went from a fairly "blanketed" speaker system to a "high transient audible" one (sorry that I can't express this better in my English). So, such a speaker allows to perceive those transients up to infinitely better. But what does it mean ?
Well, at least that when the system is more "blanketed" you'd want more transients to be there. But all you might be doing is overdriving things.
Is this bad ? probably not. It may only tell that there's no general rule for all of us.

An even better example might be the NOS1 vs the rest;
That rest will not exhibit the high transients to begin with. Still to a more or lesser degree there's something left of it. And so, emphasizing that with the lower SFS may be a good thing in such a case.
Notice though that with this last example I am not really knowing what I am talking about for net effects. I mean, I atually don't see a "rounded transient" to get more sharp by any means (like the SFS may imply). I do see it the other way around though : many things may round a too sharp transient into a more listenable one. Now *this* can only count for NOS1 users but it gets too complex to reason out the net effects. So, does a speaker which is able to show the high transients needs this rounding ? if all is righ not. Does a speaker which can not cope with that need it ? logically yes.

And the latter would be what the low SFS is doing.
This does NOT comply with my biting when it is lower. But *now* I involve noise as a cause.

Anyway, when I choose between 2 and 60, it's 60 for me;
I should have the capable speakers, but I did nothing to my 9 HDDs + SSD + CDRom in there. So if *that* is going to make the differences ...
But then I am happy as it is.
Ok, today.

Peter

[Scroobius]

So before with the optical drive connected I was 

Now with the optical drive disconnected I am    

Surprising improvement.

[Jud]

For me, on my (as you see below) quite inexpensive system:

SFS of 430 or so, too "legato."  Everything is too lacking in energy.

Re SFS of 2 and 60 (have not tried settings in between): Both are "competitive," i.e., I cannot instantly dismiss either as obviously bad.  But within a very short listening time, it becomes evident to me on a subconscious, instinctive level, no matter what material I am listening to, that an SFS of 2 just lacks something, some final integration of the sound so it all flows correctly and you can hear all the musicians playing together.  SFS of 60 achieves this (to my ears, on my system).

[Stanray]

On my system with current other settings (see below) I found a SFS value of 20. SFS=2 is dynamic and detailed, but is slightly "edgy" with some material, whereas SFS=430 is smooth, but less dynamic and a bit "dull" (it doesn't hold my attention as with low SFS settings).

Next thing I will try is using an old SATA II Hitachi Deskstar 500GB HDD I found as a Playbackdrive, to compare with the current USB3.0 WD Elements 500GB.

And of course, I will try disconnecting the optical drive first, very curious . .

Stanley

[juanpmar]

I was listening today the STOCKFISCH RECORDS "CLOSER TO THE MUSIC" VOL. 1 Sampler SACD and particularly the song n.4 "The Painter" from Sara K when I realized that the sound at SFS 60 seemed blurred and dark, then I changed to SFS 2 and the sound became much more defined. I´m not sure if this song is well recorded but for me at SFS 60 it is unpleasant while at SFS 2 is quite listenable.
The soundstage on the contrary seems more spacious at SFS 60 and the sound richer, like more reverberant, if it is a kind of distortion, I´m not sure, but SFS 2 is still a little on the dry side. Non of the two settings seems to be the perfect one. Maybe I should use one setting or the other depending on the recording. What I can say now is that not always SFS 60 is the best choice with this version of XXHE contrary to what I previously thought.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/STOCKFISCH-RECORDS-CLOSER-TO-THE-MUSIC-VOL-1-SAMPLER-SACD/productinfo/SFSA4003/

Juan

[boleary]

what is surprising is how much difference a change of just 1 in SFS makes at the lower values.

This has been the same for me....and  probably too many times, I've listened and compared even SFS values from 2 to 10. With most music I usually end up at 2.