0.9z-8-3a

[Nick]

In in four words  ...WTF happned ! 

Its a quantum leap forwards...

I simply didnt realise I was listening to so much "loudnes" (in the not nice sense) before. Normal loud play for my system was at -30db before this morning, with 09-z03a l'v been playing at -22 db at times!! and the sound is superb !

Settings so far have been similar to 09-z82, but I'v just pluged in Peters settings for a listen. I had meant to spend half an hour listening this morning but its now 1:20pm and I'm still rivitted, enjoying a real seventies fest of music

A superb landmark release Peter, many, many thanks,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Alain,

I think it all can easily be brought down to the highs not allowing to hurt earlier than sheer SPL in general. So, whatever the sizzle or snizzle or snoops you like for personal taste are there, and they do not hurt when playing really loud, it is good and maybe even reality (read : dialling out the sizzle would be the wrong thing).

All in other words : All we may like for freshness or perceived sparkle etc. etc., is not the real thing when it starts to hurt at the real high levels.

It is all not so easy;
Take Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I am not sure anymore, but I think that 0.9z-6 showed this as a way way underweighed album. There's just no bass in it with that version (and maybe a few earlier as well). However, this is with the NOS1 which is just so neutral that no color of any sort is added. This means that if the player doesn't exhibit the bass (don't ask me how that happens as a phenomenon), well, the sound is just too lean. And notice that this can be a quick observation from anyone new to the NOS1 ("I want more bass !"). But all what happens is that the front-end ain't right (XXHighEnd).

The complexity emerges when we see that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath can exhibit this extreme lean sound while any other album you own doesn't do that. Btw, other examples of this are Heaven17 and Uriah Heep - Live. Or Frankie goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome. Uriah Heep works well now for a longer time and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath the same. But at least the latter - with which I started out yesterday - now sounds as you expect from it, that fat Sabbath sound (don't look at the guitar especially when it's played, because you will be disappointed when you see the ease of the slow moving (half ) fingers.

I don't know what it is that causes some albums to behave like this while nothing is noticed from others but it must be about the highs which overwhelm the bass and when this is played loud to get something of the bass, your ears will be on fire first. And so in general : play very loud, and when the highs are hurting, it is not right.

Btw, because of the slam which now is there, I again explicitly looked in each corner of the room - even with the SPL meter, but I can find no single spur of higher SPL in any corner anywhere. And strangely enough, even less so than before (with more low output obviously). This is how I can easily play at 100dBSPL without *the bass* hurting (no standing waves anywhere). All stays as in-tact and loose and separated as with normal volume levels.

Yea, I think I am fairly happy with this version and my settings.
Peter

[PeterSt]

Btw ... I think I already announced pre-0.9z-8-3 that the SFS doesn't matter so much anymore. So, besides the more holographic sound (I think) at the higher settings, the detail remains at the higher settings (my 120 and I never tried higher). This seems to be a good thing (sort of : one dial less).

If I am right at all on this.

[Nick]

Btw ... I think I already announced pre-0.9z-8-3 that the SFS doesn't matter so much anymore. So, besides the more holographic sound (I think) at the higher settings, the detail remains at the higher settings (my 120 and I never tried higher). This seems to be a good thing (sort of : one dial less).

If I am right at all on this.

If I still had  a preamp, the volume would be set to "11" al la Spinal Tap 

[PeterSt]

One more thing about bass/highs and whatever happens ...

I once bought a few early Beastie Boys (never mind my taste) while on vacation, and played it in the rental car. Sounded the most fat and super. Try it on 0.9z-8-3 (or earlier, doesn't matter). They just forgot to bring along the bass player.
And no, I didn't turn up the bass of the car radio.
So, through the normal home stereo there is no single spur of bass (and totally unlistenable for that).

How ? I don't know.
Peter

[AlainGr]

Alain,

I think it all can easily be brought down to the highs not allowing to hurt earlier than sheer SPL in general. So, whatever the sizzle or snizzle or snoops you like for personal taste are there, and they do not hurt when playing really loud, it is good and maybe even reality (read : dialling out the sizzle would be the wrong thing).

All in other words : All we may like for freshness or perceived sparkle etc. etc., is not the real thing when it starts to hurt at the real high levels.

It is all not so easy;
Take Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I am not sure anymore, but I think that 0.9z-6 showed this as a way way underweighed album. There's just no bass in it with that version (and maybe a few earlier as well). However, this is with the NOS1 which is just so neutral that no color of any sort is added. This means that if the player doesn't exhibit the bass (don't ask me how that happens as a phenomenon), well, the sound is just too lean. And notice that this can be a quick observation from anyone new to the NOS1 ("I want more bass !"). But all what happens is that the front-end ain't right (XXHighEnd).

The complexity emerges when we see that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath can exhibit this extreme lean sound while any other album you own doesn't do that. Btw, other examples of this are Heaven17 and Uriah Heep - Live. Or Frankie goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome. Uriah Heep works well now for a longer time and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath the same. But at least the latter - with which I started out yesterday - now sounds as you expect from it, that fat Sabbath sound (don't look at the guitar especially when it's played, because you will be disappointed when you see the ease of the slow moving (half ) fingers.

I don't know what it is that causes some albums to behave like this while nothing is noticed from others but it must be about the highs which overwhelm the bass and when this is played loud to get something of the bass, your ears will be on fire first. And so in general : play very loud, and when the highs are hurting, it is not right.

Btw, because of the slam which now is there, I again explicitly looked in each corner of the room - even with the SPL meter, but I can find no single spur of higher SPL in any corner anywhere. And strangely enough, even less so than before (with more low output obviously). This is how I can easily play at 100dBSPL without *the bass* hurting (no standing waves anywhere). All stays as in-tact and loose and separated as with normal volume levels.

Yea, I think I am fairly happy with this version and my settings.
Peter

Thanks a lot Peter, it really helps me to have a better grasp of things. While I was dreaming about hi-fi a long time ago, there are many notions that I yeat have to better understand.

When I first changed whatever speakers I had for the Tannoy, I was surprised to note important differences in the LF depending on the recording and I did not know what to make of it. With the different XXHE versions, these differences lessen, so an important part of it was about standing waves (I think).

I also guess that with components of less neutrality, HF are still too prominent and create a false illusion of details, because when I listen more carefully to the voices, there is digital glare.

I should have made up my mind about this, but like many other things in life, to be explained (like you did) finally triggers a better understanding.

Regards,

Alain
PS: I wrote about this before, but anyway: Black Sabbath (Master of Reality) "Sweet Leaf" has a lot more "sparkle" with the Sanctuary Label than the Warner version. When I listen to it (Sanctuary version), the sound is so much more engaging !

[Scroobius]

For the first time I find that bigger SFS & Q settings (I tried your settings Peter) are better - but only slightly I would say. For sure they are not so important any more.

This is brilliant SQ as Nick said WTF happened? wow does this sound good. Also I do not have to frig around with settings and performance seems to be rock solid NO STOPS HOORAY.

I just turned MOBO USB off and for the first time I am not sure there is any difference in SQ - before there has always been a big difference.

Fantastic.

Brilliant work Peter - but where do you go from here? every time I think you have achieved the holy grail you go and improve things again.

A very happy bunny

Paul

[boleary]

9Z8-3a here seems a bit of a step backwards. Vocals have a subtle glare (less natural sounding) that harken back to pre Phase Alignment days. But turning PA on with 3a doesn't entirely "cure" the problem, so it can't just be about turning PA on and off. My listening was with Peter's most recent 3a settings. So what sounds best here: 9Z8e. Though I last posted that 9Z8-2 is superior to 8e, that was "achieved" through what became ridiculously loud volume levels. What Cohen last said about 8e and there being something so right, regardless of faults, continues to be true here.

Now for something really different: After playing 8-3a in ultimate X-Tweaks mode, close XX and start 8e. Go into settings and ignore the errors that proper values can't be determined and set SFS to 1 and Q1 to 7 (all other settings were as in my signature below) and hit play. What you get, I think, is the Ultimate X-Tweaks setting with the usual 8e PA settings. ..... a very interesting silky smooth, turn up the volume presentation. Not sure if it's "better" but it sure is interesting.

[PeterSt]

Ha, nice find Brian. To avoid the errors in 8e rename the NoXtweaks.tss to *.tst. Or is this file not present in 8e ? Then this doesn't work (and putting it there is useless).

Still I would say that when you set all the same in 8-3a as in 8e (and Off for that which doesn't exist in 8e) it should sound the same. If not it is unintentional.

Peter

[Scroobius]

I have just realised that my DVD burner is still connected after rebuilding my system. Why did I not realise? - simply because it just does not seem to affect SQ any longer.

Mmmmm what is going on? What have you done Peter? all the things that had a major affect on SQ before do not seem to have a significant effect any longer. Of course I reserve the right to change my opinion (when I have listened more) but for sure as of now 09-8-3a seems rock solid and very little seems to affect its ability to produce brilliant SQ.

And no stops ha ha - brilliant!!!!

Hey Nick - could this be a threat to your reputation as a "Tweaker in Chief"?

Cheers

Paul

[Jud]

Btw ... I think I already announced pre-0.9z-8-3 that the SFS doesn't matter so much anymore. So, besides the more holographic sound (I think) at the higher settings, the detail remains at the higher settings (my 120 and I never tried higher). This seems to be a good thing (sort of : one dial less).

If I am right at all on this.

First, -3a is for me definitely better than -2.  It is not so much an amazing objective leap (because I liked the sound I was finally able to get after some tweaking with -2), as it is the more subjective type of thing I experience when it's all really right: I want to hear this track, then that one, then the next and the next, etc.

It did take me just a little tweaking to get there, by playing with the SFS and Q settings, which you'll see in the sig.  It may indeed be true these (SFS in particular) don't change the sound as much as before, yet I found SFS=2 did not give the music quite enough "body," and 2.2 was just the very slightest bit too controlled.  Similarly, neither Q=16 nor Q=18 was exactly right, but Q=17 with a factor of 2 and SFS=2.1 was about as close to perfect as I can imagine hearing with XXHE at the moment: yes, accurate, but not just that - all the joy is there, too.

Listening to several tracks from Rickie Lee Jones' "Flying Cowboys," -2 gives the right high extension on her voice, cymbals, etc., but -3a does that and also provides more upper midrange body and expressiveness, as well as giving the right rasp and growl to the saxophone.  -3a also gets the subtle Doppler of the toms on "Love Is Gonna Bring Us Back Alive" just right, making me wanna get up and boogie.

Ah, and also, probably because Phase Alignment is off, I can play as loud as I like (or as loud as I've tried, anyway, Dragonfly volume at 50, XXHE at 0 attenuation) without tripping my amp's protective circuitry.

Enjoying my music a lot,

Jud

[Robert]

Gosh hardly got used to -2 and now we have -3a. I had no problems running XT Ultimate. Sound a further refinement over -2 at this point, still listening.

Robert

[manisandher]

... And also on top of that a computer with a built in heater to heat the room on these cold mornings.

OK, there must be something wrong with my setup. I have XTweaks set to 'Ultimate' but my liquid cooler heatsinks stay totally cool to the touch. I'm assuming activation worked OK - I'm getting the red wallpaper border.

The sound is very nice, but SFS settings still make a massive difference here.

Any thoughts?

Mani.

[Scroobius]

Mani - actually I have to take that back because now that I have been running a while my cooling tower is cooler than before it is cool to the touch.

Also I take back my comment about the DVD player it does have to be disconnected.

Will play further with SFS settings.

Paul

[boleary]

My cooling tower is about the same as always, slightly warm; however, my best indicator of the effect of ultimate x-tweaks is the speed of the PC- particularly stopping and starting a new track. Faster than ever before.