Just too many variables

[Chris V]

Hi Peter, the following is an observation not a criticism. 

As a scientist I am well acquainted with experiments that explore a number of variables, and the ever increasing complexity of deciphering the data that is derived from these additional variables.

I think XXHighend is moving into dangerous territory. We have Q1 (34 options - non linear), upsample (2 options), invert (2 options), double (2 options), core appointment (5 options - non linear), player priority (7 options), thread`priority (7 options), unattended (2 options).

Given that conclusions at any given selection are subjective and cannot be inserted into some complex mathematical equation, I think even Einstein would struggle to find optimum conditions.

Of course your on line guidance gives a tangible starting point, but I think you need to be thinking about simplifying the process or you may be in danger of scaring away the 'casual' person who is trying the software for the first time. 

[PeterSt]

Oh yes Chris. You are 100% right. But didn't you guess I started this project only to let you out there find the proper settings for *me* ?


But seriously, for one I can't cope with it. If I change something I can only listen to it for a week before I have a conclusion. No mr. A-B here. That's no time-spending (for me).
I can imagine though, that us audio pioneers are able to define some definite settings for the most important parameters (the piority parameters are prone to that IMO).

That's pioneering. But in the end, personally I love it;
Just woke up on the couche from listening, with the idea - somewhere sometime - that even mcHammer is able to produce sprankling straight tight-bass MUSIC, no matter may it be hiphop/rappish/techno or whatver, that becomes less important when it sounds so good. Well, that's what was in my mind 5.5 hours ago when my wife said good bye and I told here that sure I wasn't sleeping, but concentrating with eyes closed. 

For the next 1.5 hour I'll be officially sleeping.

[Calibrator]

Hi Chris,

I was thinking along similar lines in the last few days while trying to get my head around the changes introduced in 0.9S-1 ( and -2 today) .

There is no doubt in my mind that 0.9S has a level of involvement and clarity not there in the earlier versions but I can't pinpoint as to which of the many options/variables is the cause per se, or whether Peter has simply discovered ( yet again ) a method of removing another veil from the system influences.

Initially I had thought that some equalization was being applied to bring out the upper frequencies, but I'm not sure that is the case now. Whatever is happening, there is a noticeable improvement in upper frequency rendition which I find pleasing.

In some ways I think XXHE parallels the development curve of Zoomplayer ( the media playback application ). Both start out as a tinkerer's paradise and feedback given by the initial users help develop the product to the stage where a sound ( no pun intended ) functional installation of the program can be achieved which will cover the majority of the user base needs. The small minority of inveterate tinkerer's will still have options available to them but hidden from general use.

There are a couple of items I would like adding to the next version if possible. The first is a simple one, that being the specific version number after the XXHighEND letters at the top left of the playing window. This will make is easier to remember which one you are playing if you have more than one version open as you flip between them while doing comparisons. The second might be a little trickier, and may not be possible at all, and that is an indicator of some type that shows the buffer state of the sound card driver. This indicator should assist in determining the ideal combination of the Q1 slider and the number of samples chosen in the sound card driver. They appear to be interactive and if incorrectly matched manifests itself as glitches or crackles being heard.

Cheers 

Russ

[PeterSt]

There is no doubt in my mind that 0.9S has a level of involvement and clarity not there in the earlier versions but I can't pinpoint as to which of the many options/variables is the cause per se, or whether Peter has simply discovered ( yet again ) a method of removing another veil from the system influences.

This for sure is true (the different priority schemes).

Initially I had thought that some equalization was being applied to bring out the upper frequencies, but I'm not sure that is the case now. Whatever is happening, there is a noticeable improvement in upper frequency rendition which I find pleasing.

Russ ...no ...

But anyway, for what I can reason, some very strange - and apparent contradictionary things are going on;
First of all the highs clearly are more extended, as if before the output was limited to 10K and now is 20K. But of course nothing changed to that;
Before there was a kind of roughness in the highest regions (and was something wrong with that ? no ...) which now has disappeared with a factor of 100 so to speak. The effect of that, for many albums, come to pure silk sweet highs with very fragile singing cymbals, and the notice of them being "touched" no matter how softly the drummer is doing that. For these albums/tracks, the sound COMPLETELY changed, and if I may say it myself, into a new era indeed.

Then there's the ever perceived drumcomputer music. Think of Enigma, Snap, even Era at times, and somehow, most of what we'd call rap;
You could say, the cheap and easy to produce "music", it not sounding interesting at all already of the steady beats with a high degree of smeared highs, which can only be dedicated to being intentionally not looking like anything in real life.
GONE ! In fact, I now wonder whether these guys do use drumcomputers at all ...
So this music (!) too, has completely changed.

The group of piano playing music. Hmm ... where before it sounded all good to me already, now those pianoplayers seem to have bought themselves some Steinway's. Also they received some lessons in playing the piano, because now they play with feeling (the more playback gets better, the more the feelings a musician puts into the instrument is perceived).

Where the above is a main group of highs sounding softer with more detail at the same time, there's this other group of just pronouncing the cymbals (much) louder than before. These are the Led Zeppelins and all the Billy Cobhams who hit hard on the cymbals. Strangely enough this is not about better dynamics IMO, but actually about just better undisturbed transfer of what was on the record. E.g. when a cymbal is sissing from the first hit until its sound dies, we can imagine that the sissing itself flattens the dynamics really in there. So more dynamics afterall ? effectively maybe, but not as the base phenomeon *IF* we can -from now on- ever speak of base phenomena.

In fact I like this :

Distortion (not perceived as distortion without knowing better) may (will) flatten micro dynamics. Like the symbal hits (and rides !).
Adding a squarish flair to the sound increases normal dynamics (try Appointment Scheme-1 and watch your volume knob position after 30 minutes).

This is not general I think, and derived form XX' behaviour.

The second might be a little trickier, and may not be possible at all, and that is an indicator of some type that shows the buffer state of the sound card driver. This indicator should assist in determining the ideal combination of the Q1 slider and the number of samples chosen in the sound card driver. They appear to be interactive and if incorrectly matched manifests itself as glitches or crackles being heard.

This is doable, but in a separate, say, "calibration version" of the program (Sound Engine) or otherwise it will influence sound / latency. Note the latter, which is just tricky for good calibration and recursive in itself.
I must emphasize that currently this is not as valuable as you expect, becaue the real calibration is yet to come, from within XXHighEnd. On that matter I remind you, Q1 is called Q1 because of the potential Q2 . And Q3 ... But at that time, we'll indeed be lost in the variations, and that's why I intend to make an auto-calibrate in the future. Mind you, this can only be done when it's completely clear to me what is happening, and although I'm much further than one year ago already, I am not there yet. So that may take another year. Not to forget ... with the help of all of you.

Peter