SQ of 1.186, best ever! (Again)

[Gerard]

All,

What a suprise this is!!
I have been playing for a few day's now and all is working perfect! Not a single error (sound stop) anymore and the sound is more than pleasing :-) By far the best model!!

Peter congratulations with getting out of beta!

I like to wish everybody the best for 2014!!

Gerard

[juanpmar]

Today I´ve installed the new 1.186 and I´ve been testing it. Before I put here my first impressions I must say that my system now is limited, I´m using near-field monitors (ls3/5a in this case) so I can´t evaluate correctly the bass, but anyway, I´d like to share what I can hear.

For the test I´m using a cd from a Spanish singer that I know very well in recordings and in live peformances http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tarres-Serrat-Joan-Manuel/dp/B001I8BFDO/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_mus?ie=UTF8&qid=1388784838&sr=8-1&keywords=Cansiones+Serrat

I used the same settings as Peter and only changed the Processor Core Appointment Scheme. In my system the differences are not night and day (probably in any system are night and day) but here they are:

1-2: This is where the sound seems more natural, the voices are the ones that pertains to the singer, I mean I recognize that voice as the singer real one, the one I heard in live performances. The guitar (e.g. in Sabana) and in general the instruments have a special delicacy and plenty of harmonics.

The following opinions are in comparison to the 1-2 setting

1-3: The voice is more palpable but it seems to lose some nuances. The sound seems a little more upfront. The sound of the guitar strings looks more metallic.

3-4: The sound is dryer. The voice is thinner and the cords metallic.

3-5: The voice is darker and the cords in some other different way than before are also metallic.

2-3: The voice has less nuances, the instruments are more in front and the cords are again metallic.

As you can see my favorite is the 1-2 as it looks the more balanced and natural. I do not deny that the 1-2 as being the one chosen by Peter, for the moment, may have influenced my appreciation but that's what it is. We can not escape easily from the strong personality of this guy hahaha

Well done Peter!

Best regards,
Juan

[Stanray]

First, thank you Peter for another step to audio heaven. As said by others, a smooth, detailed and live SQ.

I tried some settings for a few hours on two nights and I settled for now on Core Appointment Scheme 3-5 which seems a bit more natural, but I will have to listen again.

However, I do sense (as with 0,9z-9b, but to a lesser extend) an slightly unpleasant sound stage with Q5=1. It seems not precisely focused and a bit shifted to the left hand side.
When I set Q5=5 focus is there, and with it a bit more depth in the sound stage.

I will try some more settings in the coming days.

Best wishes,
Stanley

[Gerard]

I could sore there is a life band playing in my living room! What a complete joy this out of beta version brings!!!

 

[juanpmar]

You think there is any doubt about the SQ?

Juan

[PeterSt]

Great !
And so I receive emails with videos of dancing baby's as a measure. Really so. But I have told it more often - when things work out the family hops around. I'm always peeking at that behavior.

Thank you Juan (and all),
Peter

[listening]

Found the best ever SQ here with this sweetspot:

- Peters settings but
- ClockRes = 0.5ms
- ThreadPrio = BelowNormal

Everything fits into place and is consistent - fantastic! But I cannot judge the low octaves ...

Georg

[listening]

By the way - I removed every mod from the amp and the speakers today. They are not necessary anymore. Additionally I found a bad soldering which was crucial for sometimes changig SQ. Hopefully that's all for now 

Georg

[acg]

Hi All,

I am going to go against the flow here, and say that I have been a little underwhelmed with 1.186 and Peters settings.  At first I thought the sound was super smooth and liquid, but in the end I have come to think that the sound with Peters settings is too syrupy and has a number of shortfalls compared to the beta that I have been using.

Not good at all is it?  Well, yes and no.  I lost dynamics (lots of dynamics), resolution and transient speed and sound-staging (which went from staggering to merely very good).  The sound that I want is infinitely fast with tremendous resolve and a faithful reproduction of voice and instrument alike, whether that be good or bad.  I don't want details to be glossed over in order to make it sound smooth or analogue.  What I was hearing with 1.186 and Peters settings was 'nice' and well tamed, but not really a faithful reproduction of voices or at least not the best that I think we can do.

So today I have played around with my old settings from the beta I was using and have changed a few things and am much, much more happy.  The change for me is massive and I think that I am ahead of the beta now.  The dynamics, presence, speed, sound-staging is back with interest.  So I would appreciate it if some of you guys could plug in my settings and tell me what you think.

Cheers,

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... I planned to post similar ("can someone try 'these' settings ?") after some settings changes yesterday but actually I hear so bad at this moment that I thought to wait for better times. So never mind my settings at this moment.

But Anthony, question : Do these settings now sound similar to your latest 0.9z-9 version ? If so, that would be very comfortable, because I have been reluctant to make a switch which really can let behave the new version like the old and did not want to complicate things (so I left out that switch).

And that hearing of mine is already so for several weeks, so it's all a bit tough for me at this moment.

Peter

[acg]

Yes Peter, 1.186 now sounds similar to the beta I was using before, but probably a touch better if anything (difficult to tell).  I am still amazed at how the sound can change with the press of a few buttons in XXHE...that is mad.

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

What a fantastic New Year gift. The resolution & soundstage is just fantastic.

Best regards,

Arvind

[CoenP]

Hi,

I installed this version on windows 8 and was like all previous posters immediately positively impressed with the sq (mimicking Peters recommended settings). The most important feat for me was far less shattering of the music making it sound much more like a whole musical performance. This has always been a hurdle for me to stay for a longer time on win8.

A little more listening revealed that (like Alain) I found it to be less dynamic or present than I was used to and also on occasions a bit sharp. Now trying to dial this out it became clear that the corescheme, sfs, timeres and dac buffer settings have an enormous impact on the sound. It is easilytunable to hyperdynamic end of the spectrum. I am afraid it will take some time to find the optimal blend in conjunction with bios settings, nevertheless sq remains impressive at all times!

In the meantime i will also evaluate this version on win7 and report back to you all.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... I planned to post similar ("can someone try 'these' settings ?") after some settings changes yesterday but actually I hear so bad at this moment that I thought to wait for better times. So never mind my settings at this moment.

Ok, let's do this after all.
But first Anthony's settings, because they pretty much (should) resemble the former sound (0.9z-9b);

So, the only thing more special about his settings is the SFS of 0.2 (but they could always work - now far more easy though). So, Anthony has a Q1 of 14x10 and only Q5 set to 5 (Q3,Q4 = 0,0). ClockRes is not all that much important I think, but 1 or 0.5). This should pretty much resemble the old high dynamic sound.

Personally I don't like this for the better and most probably this can be dedicated to the speaker and its speed in the tweeter. Notice though that with this speed more or less lacking it goes the other way around, and the new sound (mainly implied by Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1) may become dull. This is hard to explain but where the new sound excels, is in taking out the high albeit more rough dynamics. This, while the top end of it (highest frequencies) is sustained. This gives it this special flavour of analogue while all the detail is still there (and nowhere to be found on LP - just saying).

In my view, and as far as I have been able to judge it, the settings of my current sig go wrong-ish in the bass; most probably this now needs my ultra-low-going undistorted bass, but not sure. So yesterday I have been looking at the behaviour of the PC and found a quite different setting with as far as I can see better behaviour. And, after dialing that in from pure stupid theory, I sure had the idea this sounded better although noticed through one ear and the other one not on par either. So, maybe not better at all, but for the behaviour I see I'd say Yes.

Try a Q1 x xQ1 of 6x10, Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1, SFS=120 (and ClockRes of 1 might that ever matter).

The behaviour I see from the PC is quite unexpected and I must actually think about how this can happen. However, these settings were dialed in because I wanted some other behaviour to be better and that worked as expected. That UNexpected behaviour makes me think that there's a whole new world to explore with now Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1. So, set one of them to 0 and all is back to about how it all was but with the 1,1,1 we really have to rethink our SFS and also Q1; this is a kind of bonus.

If I heard correctly, the bass is now better again (or maybe even better than ever) and the highs are more profound but not "high dynamic". So generally speaking a more fresh sound without the general nastyness of W8.

If this is all correct then don't ask me how I did it with really one ear only.
Peter


PS: That Q1 and SFS are really arbitrary but they shouldn't be too low. So I wouldn't go lower because of the desired "behaviour effect" and possibly higher settings can even be for the better; the SFS will matter less for higher settings, but Q1 probably much. Keep in mind though that the higher Q1 (x etc.) the less responsive e.g. volume change is.

[Arjan]

Hi,
I do not use the NOS1. But I get really good results with:
Q1 = 30 Q1factor = x1, rest of Q's on 1, with SFS = 480, Engine #4 Special and scheme 3-4.

Remark: with Special a Q1xfactor above 30 results in stuttering sound.

Regards