My first Windows 8 experience

[stefanobilliani]

Well for now listening in attended . Where do I go from there ? All services off ? Just desktop?
Try going in Minimized os?

thanks in advance

s

[CoenP]

Hey Peter, am really puzzled why W7 sounds so much better here than W8. One thing I realized is that in W7 I never updated XXhighend past 9Z8d and in W8 I'm using 9Z 8-1a. Might this have something to do with it?

You are not alone. There are very few posters here with a superb win8 sound and it took them some work to get it going.

I just started with this, but my win7 sound is miles ahead of win 8. I guess in some way we all tuned our systems to win 7 in the past year. I do believe though that this will not explain the difference in experience.

Apparently the powersupply and grounding play even a bigger role with the new os.

Anyway what I am hearing here with win8 is an unnatural appearance and disapearance of tones (attack and decay). As a result the sounds are a little thick and restrained and it all does not blend into a musical performance. However the timbre and separation of instruments are traits that could complement my win7 sound. Furthermore I percieve a "loudness" or "disco" effect being a little bass and top heavy. This while it actually seems to sound less loud....

I've tried a truckload of settings to get closer to the sound magic of win7, I am afraid I have to look elswere (pc? Grounding? Supplylines?).

Regards,Coen

[stefanobilliani]

The actual problem with W8 (imo) is that its sound goodness last very little if I just *touch* something . Then it becomes pretty unlistenable after a while . Don't know . Its better performances for me remains in attended for now .
One ram disk , one playback folder ( hdd ) and so .

Lots of work .

cheers 

[GerardA]

Furthermore I percieve a "loudness" or "disco" effect being a little bass and top heavy.

That's what i thought to hear too at the start.
Now it sounds more, very neutral. I guess because I use Peter's settings now. To early to give 100% thumbs up because I need a lot more listening. But I feel there is a lot of uncertainty/jitter/noise gone and now it's more precise and detailed. It remembers me of the time I was chasing an unbalance between the left end right speaker only to find it was the difference in acoustic surroundings of the left and right speaker. Nothing can be done in my present living room sadly. This was using vinyl. Now with XXHE/Win 8 I get the same acoustic information again.

So for me Win8 is a winner!
( I have to apoligize to the MS-programmers for my bad words because now they did something very good for us)

[boleary]

Thanks Coen. I think your description very well describes what I'm hearing too.

[AlainGr]

Furthermore I percieve a "loudness" or "disco" effect being a little bass and top heavy.

That's what i thought to hear too at the start.
Now it sounds more, very neutral. I guess because I use Peter's settings now. To early to give 100% thumbs up because I need a lot more listening. But I feel there is a lot of uncertainty/jitter/noise gone and now it's more precise and detailed. It remembers me of the time I was chasing an unbalance between the left end right speaker only to find it was the difference in acoustic surroundings of the left and right speaker. Nothing can be done in my present living room sadly. This was using vinyl. Now with XXHE/Win 8 I get the same acoustic information again.

So for me Win8 is a winner!
( I have to apoligize to the MS-programmers for my bad words because now they did something very good for us)

The same magic works for me too ! As a new NOS1 user, I am very happy to finally be able to unveil all I have been missing with my previous OS dac !

And W8 is here to stay too... Until W9-10-11-12...

Alain

[PeterSt]

Day before yesterday I moved my second PC on the audio mains ring to another ring (see earlier post where I found this to be a theoretical culprit). Listened two evenings to this and never got back my happiness about the sound. Thus far I refused to put back that PC on the audio ring.

Then last night it did not sound good at all anymore. Next I found that the W8 PC was consuming 4.6GB of memory without any reason (XXEngine3 killed). After a reboot it was 1.1GB again. The PC had been up for 3 days. Btw, both memory usages are including 3GB of RAMDisk which is not reported as "consumed". I wonder whether this by itself is OK but it doesn't look so to me.
So there's a "memory leak" as how we called it.
Somewhere the past two weeks I read about someone who was sure that W8 needs a reboot after a while ?

After the above sound was OK but it tempted me to think to give up on this whole sh*t. It was not an annoying sound, but also nothing to write home about.

Will put back that PC on the audio ring and try again tonight. But if it now is so much about these things, it is out of control.


I applied a few tricks to W8 which I wil now try to apply to W7 as well. I'm sure a few people will be happy about that. I could be amnongst those. Grrrrrr.

Peter

[PeterSt]

Hey Peter, am really puzzled why W7 sounds so much better here than W8. One thing I realized is that in W7 I never updated XXhighend past 9Z8d and in W8 I'm using 9Z 8-1a. Might this have something to do with it? The only other thing which might explain it is that I have spent months building and carefully installing, through trial and error, bass traps/absorption panels at reflection points (walls and ceiling--floor has heavy wall to wall carpet) and diffusors in my man-cave listening room on the 3rd floor. I mean the room has literally been tuned to my W7 version of 9Z-8d; seriously I'd put the sound I'm getting up against anything W8 puts out and W7 wins hands down. Will post some pics in the appropriate spot when I get a chance. I'd sure hate to have to start all over again on my room treatment project, but, of course, I will if it's for the better!

What if we (maybe all) put both feet back on the floor and look at this all from a somewhat different angle;

For me, personally, and in the stage as it is in right now, there is nothing that I can find wrong with XXHighEnd and W7.
Notice that this is different from "can it be better ?". We always think it can't but always notice it could. Afterwards. It is a matter of let time pass by, and when you or anyone else or me myself comes up with whatever it takes.
But wrong up to dead-wrong ? This is a loooong time ago that that happened.

So for some stupid cold reason (btw, how's the snow up there today ? any power left ?) we are using a new OS and find ourselves in all kinds of sh*t. Only occasionally it works out for the better, but even then it is doubtful whether it is without annoyances. So keep in mind : I said a few days back that sound was superb - it really was so, but in the mean time I have complaints about cymbals and a flavor to the sound. Not good, and actually the worst were it about NOS1 users who should receive a totally neutral sound. And beware, the fact that e.g. Paul seems to have it done all the way, does not tell me whether he even knows what "100% neutral" is. And so FYI : anyone with an oversampling DAC just can-not perceive that ever. But do they complain ? no. They won't even know what I am talking about. And this is how all is so relative.

In short, Brian, no. If it takes you so much time to build the room around the software, it will look similar to my own activities. Consumes all of your time, without knowing the result and with a fair chance that each other day you will find yourself with different conclusions. And whatfore ? well, because we think we may perceive a better SQ again, while we were totally happy. At least I was. It's only seeking for troubles.

Mind you, all we talk about is "hey, I hear many more things in that track compared to before !". Yea ? so what. Don't try it and you won't know. Let the Pauls rave. Maybe at some stage we see that well over 50% raves - that could be the day to try again. Maybe it needs an SP1 first. Remember the W7 RTM days ? same story. We needed RAMDisk sh*t and what not to get something for the better while afterwards it appeared all moot because W7 RTM wasn't right. Back to Vista and what we all didn't try.

Hey, I see the same happening here. A total waste of time on something which inherently is wrong. It has to be.
The Pauls can go ahead if they like. Nothing wrong with that. He himself is allowed to be right just the same. This whole d*mn thing seems to be related to noise influence. Well, have that right by accident and you *are* right.
But by accident ?


PS: Paul, this is nothing about you and/or you being wrong by any means. I hope this is clear !

[stefanobilliani]

Well , a couple of nights ago I did try to put the W8 sound in my non-feedback class A depletion mode amp and high efficiency drivers , and it was total s++t , flat and boring . For sure . Then for the case I wanted to go for an Ubuntu computer based on Oss sound , well it was at least 10 times better allover .

Lets go figure ... ?

And yes , I am not into NOS for now , but I did a lot in the past , somehow *know* what I am missing , but that's kind of a different story from what we are experiencing these days .

[PeterSt]

The only other thing which might explain it is that I have spent months building and carefully installing, through trial and error, bass traps/absorption panels at reflection points (walls and ceiling--floor has heavy wall to wall carpet) and diffusors in my man-cave listening room on the 3rd floor.

Hi Boleary,

Room treatment is related to acoustics. A simple definition is "acoustics deals with what sound does in a room" (see "Acoustic Design For Home Studios" by Mitch Gallagher, chapter 1)

The room treatment is the physical basis (controlling reflections and reverberation, bass traps etc) for a superb sound.

Joachim

Well, everybody may think about this as he likes, may find whatever "scientific" papers he likes ... if you only know that I totally disagree. It would be the very first thing to DESTROY your measure on how your system behaves.

I won't say that treating the room isn't good to get sound to perfection, but I do say that it is the most wrong thing to do to judge your system for behavior in the base.
Although I must have said it a 100 times, you may have missed that it is my sheer measure to get rid of any single standing wave (low frequency *and* high frequency) up to any most difficult corner in the room. And so I don't use any room treatment, rather have curtains open than closed, and no XXHighEnd or driver or whatever will go out when I suddenly perceive *any* anomaly regarding this.

And for your further information and about OS DACs (see previous post) : No way any OS DAC will behave even the slightest regarding this.

So please get the merits of this;
Would I have treated my room to get rid of anomalies that way, I would not be able at all to judge this. However, since I am able to get rid of even the slighest anomaly without any treatment, what do you think will happen to the sound when treatment was there ?
Would it improve sound ? or would it perhaps kill (absorb) things which were there without treatment ?

Pick your choice.

Btw, it is not as simple as this of course. So only read about my "I rather have curtains open than closed" and see that this is "treatment" as such just the same. But starting out with treatment would be as wrong as starting out with cables which filter harshness and next hook up your beautiful new DAC.

Is this clear a little ?
Peter


PS: And do notice that no scientific research and/or report will use my way as a base. This is because it isn't recognized and obviously because I am the only or first to approach it like this. I could also say : or do we think that this research used XXHighEnd and more ? I don't think so. And when they don't, do we think it all won't matter ?
No answer needed to that, I hope.

[PeterSt]

Well , a couple of nights ago I did try to put the W8 sound in my non-feedback class A depletion mode amp and high efficiency drivers , and it was total s++t , flat and boring . For sure . Then for the case I wanted to go for an Ubuntu computer based on Oss sound , well it was at least 10 times better allover .

Lets go figure ... ?

Although it is not all apples and apples, this is how I can only *think* W8 is for the better with less noise and stuff. So please notice that I use my means to judge it which is not physically measuring; My stories may be nice and try to seek consistency in what is happening, but obviously I only try to find that "match". I can do it (make it consistent) but this sure does not mean it is correct.

Instead of saying that the noise from W8 is so low that all external noise becomes profound, I better go the route of : W8 carries noise at frequencies which accidentally resonate in a nasty way with switching supplies and more stuff. This "accidentally" is what I like, because it justifies
a. the very different perceptions of everybody;
b. the change from day 1 to day 2.
And that it would fit a theoretically bad influencing PC on the audio mains ring which influence seems for the better, fits this as well.

But then again I am only trying to make it consistent and so it is yet another blahblah story.

I have never ever had so many difficulties with finding the right story. Worse, usually story number 1 always has been the best. Now look back at post #1 of this topic. What does it say ? "I don't know". Literally and in the first line. It was not pre-cooked to post number 251 we're at now. But still no clue ? Then better stick to that post #1 is always the best.

I don't know.
And I hate that.

[PeterSt]

Any thoughts (particularly Peter, if you have any experience with memory latency numbers as they affect sound)?

Not me. I usually workout these things from stupid (my own) theories and next they should work. You can read this as : and now it is up to you all whether the theories worked out.

With this memory I apply some theory too, but this is to the "XXHighEnd PC" and is thus very dedicated to that. So, I worked that out once (say 8 months back) and now I don't know anymore. What I recall is that it's not just about looking at the latency numbers, but take into account the memory frequency applied where the latency (figures) are different, and now try to fit all as good as possible in the clock cycles.
It needs a bit of diving into the matters, but is is not all that difficult. What *is* difficult is anticipating on what you will do later with the frequency, whether it is ever possible for the PC in order and how you e.g. can end up with 2133 memory which is applied to 1600 only.

Blabla.
Sorry !
Peter

[AlainGr]

Peter,

Each time I perceive something different at two different times, I wonder which one is the best, but as I ask myself that question, I know I can't really answer.

What eludes me is how can a company like MS start coding in a way that would allow a Windows version to be more sensitive to PC noise, power noise, noise noise... ? What would be the purpose of this ?

Alain

[PeterSt]

What eludes me is how can a company like MS start coding in a way that would allow a Windows version to be more sensitive to PC noise, power noise, noise noise... ? What would be the purpose of this ?

Nah Alain, that is too much of a simple approach I think;

This now anticipates my last "reasoning" while my first is also still there. So, the first reasoning (attempt) tells that W8 exhibits so few noise that all other gets profound. When this applies, MS worked it out for the better. Right ?
Maybe not for workable result, but this would merely be our fault.

But then I don't think it is to be looked at this like this at all. Look :

On the whole globe, I see that there is ONE guy who really knows what this is all about, and he learned that after me. Not from me, thus by himself, but after me. So, it was me who started this whole subject and the rest is copying it. You can well see the tweaks and players which are there now - and they all sprung from XXHighEnd (users). This includes Audirvana+ on the Mac. But they are copying behavior and don't really know. Well, let's say like the stage I am in right now with W8. But remember, apart from ONE guy. And this guy is ...

The very same guy I had a constant fight with in a multi-thousand post thread and who was head development of the Vista Audio stack at MS. Was, because he left MS after that job. I never talked directly to him ever since, but he is the guy who could really tell, would he have been on the W8 (audio) development team. Heck, maybe I should contact him.

There's also that matter of how at least the WASAPI audio stack has changed, and IIRC it was you who sent me a PM about it (there's only one always sending PMs so it has to be you ). This is about WASAPI now being open to Metro apps with no clue on my side how it would influence Kernel Streaming (which is the base of it all). This is not what your PM was about, although this is in the same direction ("offloading" of audio to other hardware).
At least this would be a very good reason why the sound changed so drastically, because every small thing matters, and this would be a drastic change. Still no idea how it would influence KS, but since this is the base I think it had to be changed along the lines.

Lastly, notice that a PC is not made for high end audio and it has no attention from MS at all. Low latency streaming yes, but that is only one of our "vehicles".

Regards,
Peter

[AlainGr]

What eludes me is how can a company like MS start coding in a way that would allow a Windows version to be more sensitive to PC noise, power noise, noise noise... ? What would be the purpose of this ?

Nah Alain, that is too much of a simple approach I think;

This now anticipates my last "reasoning" while my first is also still there. So, the first reasoning (attempt) tells that W8 exhibits so few noise that all other gets profound. When this applies, MS worked it out for the better. Right ?
Maybe not for workable result, but this would merely be our fault.

But then I don't think it is to be looked at this like this at all. Look :

On the whole globe, I see that there is ONE guy who really knows what this is all about, and he learned that after me. Not from me, thus by himself, but after me. So, it was me who started this whole subject and the rest is copying it. You can well see the tweaks and players which are there now - and they all sprung from XXHighEnd (users). This includes Audirvana+ on the Mac. But they are copying behavior and don't really know. Well, let's say like the stage I am in right now with W8. But remember, apart from ONE guy. And this guy is ...

The very same guy I had a constant fight with in a multi-thousand post thread and who was head development of the Vista Audio stack at MS. Was, because he left MS after that job. I never talked directly to him ever since, but he is the guy who could really tell, would he have been on the W8 (audio) development team. Heck, maybe I should contact him.

There's also that matter of how at least the WASAPI audio stack has changed, and IIRC it was you who sent me a PM about it (there's only one always sending PMs so it has to be you ). This is about WASAPI now being open to Metro apps with no clue on my side how it would influence Kernel Streaming (which is the base of it all). This is not what your PM was about, although this is in the same direction ("offloading" of audio to other hardware).
At least this would be a very good reason why the sound changed so drastically, because every small thing matters, and this would be a drastic change. Still no idea how it would influence KS, but since this is the base I think it had to be changed along the lines.

Lastly, notice that a PC is not made for high end audio and it has no attention from MS at all. Low latency streaming yes, but that is only one of our "vehicles".

Regards,
Peter

I don't think it is me that mentionned about this Wasapi intermingle with KS, but Mani ? Would it be this ?

Firstly, I just can't replicate anything approaching what Joachim and Alain are describing. I'm getting perfect stereo panning and a generally very wide sound stage.

As to Peter's Yahoo! moment, I'll go for WASAPI still working with KS - kind of interleaving. Well Peter did say "start shouting the most ridiculous".

Mani.

Alain