SQ of 1.186, best ever! (Again)

[Scroobius]

So one of my New Years resolutions is to finally start contributing to this community that has given me so much!

Hey Todd - great to see you posting - the first of many I hope.

Paul

[CoenP]

Hi,

I've been trying to dial in 1.186 on windows 8 and encountered a sound issue. I cannot completely reproduce this consistently, but it was clearly noticable with high sfs (120), Q (14x10) and a timeres of 0.5 s.

On my system the sound got focussed between the speakers instead of being loose from them; more specifically it skewed to the right speakers side too. The sound also gained an unpeasant artificial (stressed?) quality with a lack of dynamics and small and condensed instrument "images". Changing the settings makes this effect dissappear and reappear.

A soundcheck on my win7 8e reference confirmes my finding of the skewing and narrowing of the sound balance.

Does anyone got a familiar experience?

Furthermore I have found that 1.186 dispite its virtues is no cure for the windows8 sound imperfections on my system that I have been raising since a year ago. I will put a little more energy in installing and optimising it for my win7 setup.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen,

Changing the settings makes this effect dissappear and reappear.

Do you mean :

Changing the settings makes this effect dissappear and changing back makes them reappear.

?

Peter

[CoenP]

yes Peter,

But it is not solely triggered by the high sfs or high Q/Qx, timres or buffer size, but rather certain combinations. Thats what I meant with reproducing it consistently.

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

Tonight I compared with 9z9b on win 8 (same tracks) and it seems that the balance is allways shifted to the right. It is only better noticable with some settings than others (ie low timeres).

It will shure take a lot of time experimenting with all possible dials to establish the most influencial ones...

I've had no weird skewing (yet?) of the balance on windows 7 with 1.186.

Regards, Coen

[acg]

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.

Sorry to hear you are a bit crook (your ear?).  I hope you pick up that dropped channel soon!

Ok. As you would have seen earlier, today I have compared the PPAstudio card to the Silverstone USB Card (with the Silverstone preferred) and as a result everything has changed.  I now see that there was some sort of colouration happening with the PPA card that when removed change how the various settings in XXHE 1.186 work, or rather make the highs less muted and more prone to harshness, but better overall.

Anyway, I have been playing around with the various recommended settings and I am reasonably sure that I do like the 1.186 settings in your signature more than my previous settings from the beta (finally).  I have also keyed in the 6/10/1/1/1 SFS 120 settings you suggested to try and I _think_ that I prefer them in my short listening session with them so far.  The bass on Daft Punk is just so coherant...I am liking it a lot.

Early days with these settings, but quite promising.

Anthony

[PeterSt]

All channels up again - thank you Anthony.

For the first time I could listen to my theoretically dialed in setting (that 6x10 / 1,1,1 / SFS=120). Well, I'd say it is totally different (than 1x1 / 1,1,1 / SFS=0.4) and the key is in the highs. Bass is super (was not 100%).

Can't desrcibe the highs but I'm sure what weights in the most is that Silverstone. Highs are now full of roughness (= separation) while for the first time of my life I lasted a full goa album (hey, call that modern house). I didn't even receive any comments (only discussed with my son that he should be able to last 180bpm for an hour in a row (as a learning drummer)). What I'm trying to bring across is that while the highs are now so full of roughness (opposite of satin or silk) it still is unable to hurt no matter the loudness. There's no spur of grey and all sings and bells.

My former setting did not make it dull, but more for those who drink their tea and lift the pinky with it. Not laid back but sit back. The settings as of now make you "yea yea yea" and rather think of Tina Turner in an Australian movie. Ok, that made no sense but I hope you get it.

Peter

[acg]

Do you mean 'Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome' Peter?  Tina Turner was pretty loud in that one.

My highs are quite good with these settings Peter, which is probably due to the fact that I have not been able to take the LPS off the Silverstone just yet.  Have you tried a LPS into the Silverstone 5V Molnex?

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Tonight I compared with 9z9b on win 8 (same tracks) and it seems that the balance is allways shifted to the right. It is only better noticable with some settings than others (ie low timeres).

Coen, the below I started adding to my previous post, when I suddenly saw some sort of relation and now hook it to your remark;

Now I think of it, there's also this which only occurs to me in aftermath :
With the former settings (so SFS=0.4 etc.) the balance of the highs was so much "notched" at something like 4-6KHz that the part above 6KHz got profound. So, that made it more analogue but still full of detail. This in itself caused more necessary sweetspot listening. So, I have horns and the sound is quite directional and that tweeter now jumps out ony at the sweetspot.

Notice : I walk around a lot in the back of the music space, which is the kitchen and therefore pass the middle of the sound beam(s) regularly. What the former settings implied is that I always heard the most highs when passing that middle. This is nothing what I'm used to and I also don't like it. Of course it oughts to be like that, but I still prefer to have no sweetspot and don't want to be bothered by the psychology of "you better be in that sweet spot or you miss out". So ...

What I know think is that while it probably is unavoidable that left and right have the exact same loudness, it is the being too profound of the tweeter that makes us notice this (btw I never noticed it but I also don't try to). And, this is not the tweeter as such, but the balance or maybe special balance that's implied mainly by Q5=1.

Thus, I just started typing the first paragraph above (but in my previous post) and suddenly saw the relation with left and right shifts because of how you (Coen) had written it.

Maybe it should feel like just having crossed the sound barrier and we all now travel in a new dimension and much more starts to matter. I mean, the difference with 0.9z-9 (no Q5=1 used) is in my view totally crazy. Thus, SO different. For example, yesterday I compared a vinyl rip with the CD of the same version and I so explicitly noticed the difference in channel separation (relatively inexistent for vinyl). So, no channel separation = no differences to perceive (this can be reasoned the other way around just the same - so don't ). Think like the difference with W7 to be more modern. Now :

Are we able to perceive a difference of 0.02dB for left and right ? If yes than ditch your NOS1's because it will be off something like this. But now think about the now possible shift of that mid to tweeter balance (see previous post); What if the always 5% off resistors in your speaker crossover make the right tweeter sound louder than the left while with the mid it goes accidentally the othet way around. 5% ? Man, that is a LOT (and notice that +5% can be on one side while on the other it's -5% thus total 10% possible difference).
Is it clear where I'm going ? ... shift the mid-high balance in software and the L/R balance can change. Nothing to do with software - it's just the speaker. Maybe.

Peter


PS: I am just thinking again - how it happened that I lasted that whole "house" album; I just couldn't wait long enough for the next track to start and how that would evolve; I already know that some of these guys making that music can really do a good job SQ wise and how interesting it can be (think Infected Mushroom if you have no clue). So, I have been trying this before. Now this seems to work. And mind you, these are 8 minute tracks, always starting softly but within the minute it is boom-boom-boom for the remainder (and 180 beats or a bit lower per minute). You can call me crazy to even try it, but we can also try to think that once that starts to work, something really changed.

[PeterSt]

Do you mean 'Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome' Peter?  Tina Turner was pretty loud in that one.

Sure I do.

My highs are quite good with these settings Peter, which is probably due to the fact that I have not been able to take the LPS off the Silverstone just yet.  Have you tried a LPS into the Silverstone 5V Molnex?

No. Well yes, but that was in the "special setup" which did not work, and I never found the time to proceed with that. Won't happen soon either I'm afraid.

Regards,
Peter

[juanpmar]

For the first time I could listen to my theoretically dialed in setting (that 6x10 / 1,1,1 / SFS=120). Well, I'd say it is totally different (than 1x1 / 1,1,1 / SFS=0.4) and the key is in the highs. Bass is super (was not 100%).

I tested Q1:6 xQ:10 / 1,1,1 / SFS=120 and I found also a very different sound compared in my case with Q1:6, xQ1:1/ 1,1,1 / SFS=2,0. With the first settings the sound is much more in front and the soundstage is reduced in comparison with the second settings that have the voices more in the rear part of the scene. I found the sound with the first settings a little dry and artificial. I prefer the second settings although maybe I´d like the voices a few steps in front from its position. Perhaps changing the SFS values to something in between 1,0 and 2,0 I would find the best for my taste. I´ll try it.

Juan

[juanpmar]

Now YES!. I´ve installed the Silverstone USB 3.0 SST- EC04-P card and the sound is much better than with my previous Tecknet card. The sound stage is big, really big, even with my little Chartwell ls3/5a speakers, good bass, the best one I could get with this speaker considering its limitations. The highs are not smooth nor dry, are just as they should be: natural and clean.
The sound is better than with my other card no matter the settings but I find that the settings suggested lately by Peter are the best ones so far with 1.186-a (Q1=6, -, Q3,Q4,Q5=1. xQ=10. SFS=120)

I agree totally with the ones that have this card, it is a fantastic achievement. It should be mandatory to install it.

Regards,
Juan

[CoenP]

Hi,

To make my setup a little more in line with the forum, I ordered a the above mentioned Silverstone USB3 card. Today I received it.

This card is a firm departure from the sound of the modded PPA studio card I had in it. At first it didn't sound right, but applying the advocated settings I can actually reproduce (to a certain extend) the SQ effects Peter cs are describing. Now all your posts make more sense!

Anyway I heard the win 8 narrowing of the soundstage at first, but not the channel skewing anymore. With slightly different settings to sound opened up.

I'll give it some break in and experimenting before joining this discussion again.

regards, Coen

[acg]

I am most interested in your thoughts here Coen.

Anthony

[CoenP]

I am most interested in your thoughts here Coen.

Anthony

I've got no conclusive thoughts other that this card seems to react more inline with Peter's ' recommended' settings. So different settings (OSses?) apply. Also I did not mod it in any way and connected the PC psu to the molex.

Well, I have the impression I hear much more fine detail yet a similar presentation of voices (loose from background and instruments). At this stage the PPA has more naturalness about it, but I'm just starting with this card.

regards, Coen