2.10 sound quality

[Robert]

I find SFS 10.19 and Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 20 too smooth losing the edge of cymbals and lead guitar.

But also find SFS 140.19 Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 10 a little brittle and bright in the treble.

I'm now trying SFS 70.19 Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 20 seems to be a good compromise but further listening happening.

Certainly worth trying out in different computer setups.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Great stuff, Robert.

I can concur with both you are saying. And something like the 70.19 could well be in the area of the better. Also, we already know from more recent past that the higher the SFS (all else the same) the more "bright" things become. This really is a "tuner" at this moment.

For me, with he Stealth III and most certainly also the Lush^2 + Blaxius^2 this expresses even more. And so much more that one can start to see how ir is really working. But that expresses in the lower regions. So exactly as you talk about "losing the edge of" which is quite literal because your "too smooth" indication, is what one sees happening at the far more square exhibit at the lower frequencies (like for synthesizers).

That all said, as per briefremark's (Ramesh') finding, making the hardware buffer's size smaller now is a 3rd dimension into this.The largest buffer (16ms) emphasizes whatever the SFS does for result (your post plus see above). Making that buffer 4ms and all seems to become more coherent and requires less (brain) attention. Sadly I am afraid that we can't all manipulate that hardware buffer. So I am talking about the NOS1's Driver Control Panel where it can be set, and it is not said that you can set this somewhere too. And if you can, will it ever work out the same ? (although I start to be more and more surprised how there can be such consensus over (now even hardware) settings which work out the same for so many). So if you can find one, try to lower it.

As always, thank you Robert,
Peter

[grom64]

Greetings, Peter!
Thanks for 2.10 !!!
At 32 GB, RAM increased to 25.
Freedom of sound is boundless!

[PeterSt]

Greetings, Peter!

Ha ! Long time !
I hope you have a nice winter over there.

Best regards,
Peter

[grom64]

Yes, a lot of time!
I am now in the southern region of Russia! 
I wish you health and success!

[PeterSt]

Hi All,

After trying the SFS of 80.19 for a small week, I noticed that too many albums received a "buzz" (as in buzzing sound). Not all, but some. I also think that the 80.19 is better than 140.19 (this could be personal, but say that the sound is a tad less "exaggerated" with 80.19).
I am now on 100.19 for a couple of days and it could be the best of both worlds ...

Peter

[Robert]

Peter,
        Funny you should mention buzzing I noticed this yesterday on Mark Knopflers new album first track.

Anyway I will try 100.19 SFS. Have you changed xQ1 for this setting.

I'm still running xQ1 at 20 prefer it over 10.

Robert 

[PeterSt]

Haha

Robert, Q1=30, xQ1=20. So nothing changed there.

Regards,
Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi there,

I also tried some different SQ settings during the last weeks. I got new, more voluminous speakers and therefore had to change something, because esspecially the basses became annoying sometimes.

So..., SFS=100.19 is much better than SFS=140.19, what I had before.

Nervous Rate is now down to 4 (it was betwenn 16 and 20,  what had a pretty big impact, when SFS was as high as 140.19 to make the sound a bit smoother). Now the lower values sound better, clearer without doing it too much.

Q1x=11 now, as I hadn’t so good results with higher valies like Q1x=20 (smearing a bit).

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Here we go again ...

I an copying from my current settings :


Ehm ...

So the text above is from around 6pm yesterday (today it sat still in my browser, and while I tried to obtain the data from my Mach III PC, nothing responded. In itself this is an other story, so I will let that be for an other post, elsewhere.
Fact is that this is from yesterday and that it does not try to outbetter Richard's post. with new settings.
So continuing :


Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5
SFS = 0.69
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
Core Appointment = 3-5
Nervous Rate = 10
Wallpaper On, no OSD feautures
(Driver NOS1 Control Panel buffer : 16ms.

This gives a complete different presentation again, and actually a more known from the past. But better again, IMO. Notice that this is a bit tough to judge, because so many things changed by now, hardware-wise. But main charactirestics :

- Unsurpassed better bass;
- Complete 3D behavior with about everything extending sideways from the speakers (more left than the left hand speaker, more right than the RH speaker).
- An again "more speed" perception but which is more palpable than the higher SFS settings (seems contradictory).

Fun for myself : I reasoned this in advance. Something like : Okay, after 10 years or so PeterSt maybe understands his software (approaches).

The new thinking is actually the smaller SFS again for reasons of better spread of noise. Think "overwhelming" the existing still present noise. I did this by leaving all else as it is

The trick is how to get there with the settings, without ending up in the same we already used for "years". So I only wanted to have the SFS down.
Well, that does not work because in "consistency" the software was (once again) not written for the contradictory settings (like large on one hand and small on the other).

Experimentation learns that an SFS of 0.69 is about the smallest one can get, but somehow taking into account the 0.19 thing (which undoubtedly makes no sense, but we arrived at that a little while ago), with the thinking that 1.19 is too large, so I applied half of the increase with 1. This gives 0.19+0.50 = 0.69.

This does not work because the volume now does not want to change (OK, one time). Now Q1 has to be further down and I did that in steps of 30, hence only adjusted the xQ1. 5 of that appears to be the minimum that all still works (7 works mostly but not always and 6 I did not try). Also, e.g. 1 does not give a better sound (the contrary). And thus :
Q1=30, xQ1=5.

This works, although there is always a small stutter at the volume increase.

The sound is so new and refreshing that I personally wonder what we have been doing lately.

In retrospection what Richard comes up with (which I thus only learned today), we can see a similarity in the Q1 needing to be lower. And to be honest, I started digging into the settings because actually 100.19 did not satisfy me either. Richard calls is smearing and it did not come to me like that, but my mentioned "buzzing" remained, which clearly is lesser with the SFS going higher. But the higher did not suit me any more either and thus something else had to change.

Now suppose Richard could try this briefly and he agrees without doubt, then I will unconditionally make the software work so it accepts the lower SFS settings (like 0.08 etc.) together with the other higher settings. And then we will have a SQ improvement for the next XXHighEnd version ...
Btw, I think those lower SFS settings can already be utilized, if only the volume does not need to change. But I never really listened to that, as not being able to change the volume leads to nothing.

And ... Thank you, Richard !
Peter

[Robert]

Certainly is an interesting sound even on my non Mack. All settings work fine. As you describe it certainly sounds like it.

Where have you set Max SFS? Don't know if this affects soundwise.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Where have you set Max SFS? Don't know if this affects soundwise.

Robert, that's set at "the same" (thus also 0.69). I don't know whether it makes a difference (it will be less convenient because at some stage you can't test the larger number unless you first reboot).

Regards and Happy New Year !
Peter

[Robert]

Happy new year and all. Gosh don't know but the new settings are amazing as we enter New Year celebrations.

And no odd glitches as per high SFS.

Everything performing perfectly. Off to hear a real band well a covers one but with real instruments. 

Robert 

[Tore]

Peter, your new settings is definitely no good match for the Stealth Mach 2.
I`m happy with my normal settings (see sign. )


Tore

[PeterSt]

Thank you very much for that feedback, Tore !

Yes, I can imagine this ti be very true. When I used the Mach II for an evening (described in that other topic) the very first I got rid of were those "new" settings. I ended up with that set with SFS=140.19, which to me feels in the same direction as what you currently use (as seen in your signature).

Kind regards and happy New Year !
Peter