ram-os drive, XXHE v2.06b, Windows 10 build 14393.0

[AlainGr]

I just installed the Win 10 build 14393.0 as offered by Peter through download.
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3683.msg39307#msg39307

With first listenings, as Peter mentions, there is lots of HF and the percussions are more lively and this is how I like it !

The only drawback I could see is that some voices may be a little more on the "edgy" side, but I will need to compare with Win 10 build 10586.0 and Windows 8.

As for the bass (LF), since I am still discovering the "goodies" from my recently upgraded NOS1a and I have noticed more presence and weight in that register, it is harder for me to report.

Alain

[PeterSt]

Thank you for reporting Alain !

I actually did not tell so much about it in the "announcing" topic, but the presentation is so different that it is hard to compare with anything in the first place. This is how I came to the more strange comparison with parts of Windows 7, others from W10 10074 and sound as the Silverstone card produces.

But for presentation as a whole, I don't know what to say really;
So far, all albums I play with one or a few tracks put to my Demo Gallery and which I now play in full, go track by track now all in the Demo Gallery. This means quite explicitly that tracks I did not find worth while to hear back regularly (for whatever reason back at the time) are now suddenly very worth while.

What I notice is the high level of foottapping, but in a rythmic up-sweeping sense. I suspect that the PRaT (Pace, Rythm and Timing) level is suddenly very high ...
Something really really happened.
I found myself singing along with a piano piece I actually don't know. Now who is singing along with a piano piece ...

If anything, the voices could be a tad laid back, but not sure yet; yesterday I tried to discover the reality of that, but this is not so easy - especially not because there's so much going on elsewhere, suddenly.

The whole thing seems "unbreakable" if you know what I mean. It can't get too loud, you can't pick the wrong album, ... everything not only sounds wonderful ... it just sounds great. It should be capable of reversing a bad mood (although that seems too tough to do in general).

It feels like the lower frequency attacks (like the hit on a drum) are now very gradually evolving. You just hear and feel the hit coming.
Meanwhile the high frequency accuracy (sharpness / freshness / speed) is there as never before. It is (IMO) the combination of these both which makes a snare drum (snare on) for real.

Okay, now I said a couple of things. Hopefully you are all experience similar or even better ...

Peter

[AlainGr]

Peter,

I always wonder how you can relate the sound of a previous version such as Windows 7 compared to a very recent version, but I trust your reports as I know that when you do (report), you have a method that has so often proven to be right.

I am excited too about this and I may even "scr*p" my experiences with Windows 8, but for the moment I will leave it on the disk. My 3 OSes (apart from the TEST version, build 14388) will be the ones I play with for a while, but you define the different attributes so well, it incites me to go "with the pack" if I can express things this way.

So I will put accent on this new version and yes it is well weighted in the LF, but man are those highs an incitative to smile !!!! It almost brings the sunshine to the grey weather we have her (but at least it is not hot and humid as it has been last week).

I hope that more will weight in to report their findings, but the percussions... It is mad

Golden Earring "Radar Love" is in a league in itself with all those percussions. I feel crazy...

Alain

[juanpmar]

All is working fine here. Only a first impression.

Yes, that treble is somewhat lighter, thinner and even seems bright but above all, and after a while the feeling that prevails is the clarity.
Bass seems noticeably better, can be perceived the different bass tones better than before. Now the bass is not only an instrument to mark the rhythm, instead it makes music for itself. Maybe it is something obvious but to hear it clearly is not so easy.

Above all, again, this new 14393.0/XXHE v2.06b increases the consistency across the spectrum. The entire sound spectrum seems to live in a more harmonious and coherent manner. There is no sound holes. Now the sounds are played without pushing or overlap each other.

In conclusion, I would say it is again a step forward, although it must be done with a little time, especially to get used to the treble.

Putting a new operating system on the RAM-OS with the latest version of XXHE with the settings (they work for me) is an extraordinary advance in comfort and ease of use.

Congratulations and thanks, Peter!

Juan

[PeterSt]

Hi all,

With the notice that the responses in here are overwhelming (not, but thank you Alain and Juan !), I now will be the only one not liking 14393.0. That is :

Yesterday, after several days of holding on to it, I finally gave up, booted into 10586.0 and had a great (listening) time.
14393.0 is too difficult to have right or not too bright or whatever it is that gives me the nerves;

I don't think it is wrong per se, but it will be the kind of "Silverstone card" behaviour which now gives too much of a character to the sound, or which is high frequency on-off stuff which is tiring or so. It is hard to tell.
The metal is fine, but nothing now is "soft" as such. Attacks also contain it. Something like that ...

Anyone ?

Peter

[juanpmar]

Yes Peter, today I was thinking something similar. These highs make,  somehow, to miss the coherence of the whole. I thought that the loss of charm perhaps was because the ear had become accustomed, as usual, to the new sound. But those highs are still disturbing, more in some CDs than others, and never again, after all, look natural. Those highs make that this 14393.0 version has lost its capacity to thrill. So far.

Regards,
Juan

[juanpmar]

I was using the High filter 705600/768000 / 4.14%. Changing it to the High filter 705600/768000 / 3.72.0% seems to make the highs smoother besides a larger soundstage. Not sure yet if it solves the problem but I'm afraid that not totally.

Juan

[AlainGr]

I was thinking something like this too. The first days can be exciting but after a while, some aspects can be a little too "sharp" (of "fresh" like you use to say Peter). For me it reflects in voices with a small "roar" as if the microphone was in the person's mouth (strange image, but...).

I realize that differences with a new version can sound appealing at first, then can become irritating. The "Silverstone" sound is a very good example.

Win 10 build 10586 seems to be the "natural" one - something like a "reference". Windows 8 (it is probable that I am one the the very few that still uses it sometimes) is a little less natural in the HF but it makes wonders in the LF, even if I find the differences less obvious (LF wise) with Win 10 build 10586.

What I find interesting is that these different versions alter the sound (or should we say the path and processing or the signal) enough to make things sound different, even if this was said many times.

Alain

[AlainGr]

I was using the High filter 705600/768000 / 4.14%. Changing it to the High filter 705600/768000 / 3.72.0% seems to make the highs smoother besides a larger soundstage. Not sure yet if it solves the problem but I'm afraid that not totally.

Juan

Interesting I have tried the custom filters a few times but I am unsure of the results. When I do not perceive enough differences (my hearing is not that good), I tend to go back to AP (Arc Prediction) alone... Maybe I should try the custom filtering more often...

Alain

[AlainGr]

As for others participation, well summer and vacations but also lots of discoveries that you have unwrapped Peter - all may explain this... You are so active (but I certainly will not complain)

Alain

[Robert]

I havn't commented because I'm still undecided.

But I am trying Paul's suggested settings(not sure which OS he tried this on, his sig says 10586) SFS 2/120, Q1=1 with 14393 and think I prefer them to SFS 120/120, Q1=10.

I have also removed the Intona temporarily. Even though the Intona does some good things I suspect it also throws a veil over the music.

Not dissimiliar from my experience with power filters and the Silverstone card.

Certainly since returning to no Min OS Base and back to RAM OS in 14393 it has become more buggy. Now I get odd errors(hard error box) but it still plays music.

Anyway I would like to listen to music and not the settings before I go mad!!!

Robert

[juanpmar]

I was trying to rewind when it was the last time I was really impressed with the sound and it was when I changed my settings to the new ones: SFS 120.0 Max 120.0. XTweaks 43, 100,- 1, 1. Q1:14, Q3:0,  Q4:1, Q5:0 AND ClockRes: 1ms in place of 0.5ms.The custom filter was High 705600/768000 / 4.14%. And all that happened with W10-10586.0. XXHE v2.06a. I tested it again today and again the sound impressed me the same way. I changed the ClockRes to 0.5ms and the voice presence and smoothness was lost and the piano was somewhat a bit strident. Thinking that maybe the clue was in the clock resolution I returned with the same settings to the W10-14393.0 version. The result is that still the highs are a bit strident. So I return, for now, to W10-10586.0 with the settings mentioned above. However let me mention that the W10-14393 seems to have a better definition compared with W10-10586.0

Juan

[PeterSt]

I have also removed the Intona temporarily. Even though the Intona does some good things I suspect it also throws a veil over the music.

Hey Robert, you are really getting the hang of this all.
Maybe you recall me saying this :

N.b.: I hope I can speak for all of you, because I have again something new in my chain (and indeed meant for you all as well, later) and very maybe it can be so that this new "device" normalizes the highs so something very pleasant and special and without it, possibly the highs may come across as "overdone".

(the "for all of you" maybe must be "on behalf of all of you" for better English ?)

So that. I don't use the Intona but now something else. This is prototype of something which will even be ultimately better, but anyway with Intona I am not so sure whether I would have standed 14393.0 for very long. The highs are quite a level of "more" again and not for the better at all. That is, not for the better compared to that device I now use. But that device also brings quite "ultimately" better sound to 10568.0.
So it is hard to compare in your place, but if I had to do it with the Intona I would have said No.
But go figure, because I also have the B'ASS active (PCB's for that finally arrived today ! - but to test out) so all becomes very difficuly to lay out for you all. Still I can't hold back if I see a glimps of possible improvement. But this is also how more than 2 persons should have a verdict ...

Btw, my 2nd last night before I reloaded 10586.0, was almost all dedicated to finding the better settings for 14393.0. I ended at an SFS of 1, Clockres of 1 and Q1 of 14x1 (and thus not 14x10). I thought this was better standable.

However let me mention that the W10-14393 seems to have a better definition compared with W10-10586.0

Well, the sort of misery is that I too have the idea that 14393.0 is the better one, but that something else is destructive to it. Here's a funny thing that you will feel aquainted with :

With the Q1=14x10, Clockres is 0.5, SFS =120, NOS1 Driver Buffer = 16, all feels right. So it may get on my nerves for a not really known reason, but what's really strange is that as soon as I start "randomly" change one of those values back to the more commonly know (for me, like NOS1 Driver = 4), all falls apart and within seconds I am back at the old setting. Now, somewhere deep down this tells me that 14393.0 may be very good indeed, just because things belong to each other (sorry for this poor English). All fits. That we have some nerve breaking thing in there, could be a filter, for example. So yes, I saw you guys writing about that, but I did not think of changing those. It also feels a bit like the culprit being in that domain, althoug I only started to think of it when I saw you wrote about it.
I am still pretty sure that I hear much more through 14393.0, so why wouldn't that also show the baddies better ?

Peter

[AlainGr]

Peter,

When you mention something better than the Intona, do you mean that the Intona is bringing something bad since build 14393 ?

I must admit that I never put the Intona in doubt since the beginning, as I felt something really good with it.

Alain

[Robert]

Alain remove the Intona and listen. This is not caused by 14393 but is made worse. I'm not going back to 10586 yet. Whatever's wrong with 14393 will be solved I'm sure.

I had reason to remove it while upgrading a mod chip in my DAC and it definitely seeded doubts about its overall sound benefits in my mind.

I always have a problem with adding more wires and boxes between components. More connections/wires are problematic, less has always been best.

Ultimately the benefits of Intona should be incorporated in the DAC if these prove to be the case.

Robert