Interesting Q1 & .9U-2

[SeVeReD]

I just tried .9U-2 at -2 and it works!  A couple or 4 hehe versions back this setting would lock up... have to listen around this area more.  Still like 18 though.  I don't know if I could do this with .9T or .9U-1,,, haven't tried them.

[Gerard]

Dito here... -2 was always someting that could not be done and was resulting in cracks.... Not anymore 

[PeterSt]

Huray for hocuspocus !

I can't be sure whether things go together, but at the numerous testing with the track end problems (as was reported yesterday) I *had* to play Attended and in the end I changed my signature ...
IOW with this, we can have the coincidental situation that the influence of XXHighEnd itself creates a good (jitter) signature.

What I perceive from it is a less stressed sound in the cymbals opposed to UnAttended. They got better again IMO.
Btw, an IMO good album to always incorporate in tests is Get Yer Ya Ya's Out from The Stones. This is a most flat dull sounding recording, which gets better and better with subsequent versions of XX.

Anyway, I wonder what our jitter geek(s) think(s) about the jitter at Attended playback ?

[andy74]

give me a sec...

[andy74]

Here is what I observed:

1. 9u-3 Attended plays a lot better. Another level of perfect for me. Really good
2. 9u-3 Unattended gives me that uneasy feeling again.
3 9u-2 Unattended/Attended same as 2. Although 9u-3 a bit better.

Actually the uneasy feeling was always there since 09.u with only exception for 24/192 DAC setting for my Juila card.
And now it's gone again with 0.9u-3 Attended on my other cheap device.

So Peter, what you sense when hearing 9u-3 attended vs Unattended corresponds to my my bad feeling I always talking about when something is wrong with the sound.
It would be great if this "mapping" is true in all cases and then you won't need a jitter geek to tell bad sound(jitter) from good.


Andrey

[PeterSt]

Thank you VERY much for your testing *and* special testing capabilities.

I guess I'm starting to learn Andrey. I think I already told you that I could sense what you meant at the first 0.9u version. Yesterday suddenly all was back to far more "normal" as how things came to me, and this is why it didn't take me long to "change my signature". It's a kind of a 10 second decision.

Of course we now have the problem again that the sound is now superimposed by the player (XXHighEnd) instead of the real sound producer (XXEngine3) being able to do it alone. 0.9u-3 is a rather "full featured" version though, and the only near by functionalities to add are 176400/24 (and 16) / 192000/24 (and 16) playback. So, may something be destroyed for SQ in upcoming versions we can fall back to 0.9u-3 for a longer period I think (wasn't 0.7d such a long lasting version ?).

FYI : *Everything* (each line of code) which is changed is documented per date so I should always be able to go back. However, this is theory only, because when it is needed, I'd to eliminate functionality accordingly. As you know, this is why UnAttended Playback was introduced (the functionalities are in the player (XXHighEnd) only), but per 0.9u much was changed in the sound engine itself, due to the support of all the sample rates, bit depths, padding and all. The impact of that is as huge as we experienced, for the largest part for the better, but for that smaller part ... well, not.

Andrey, I am not a phychologist, but I tend to think that this time (with UnAttended) you are not sure that it is jitter causing the uneasiness. Just the way you speak about it tells me so. If I am right, would you be able to express what it actually is you sense, taking out jitter explicitly as a cause ?

What springs to my own mind is "sibilance". Sibilance of a same type all Class D amps show. Some very high frequency layer. Like a 2,4GHz clock influence. Hahaha.


I am not sure what further high schools it takes to work it all out, but the fact that some of you couldn't play the Q1 so low anymore without crackles, has never been solved really. I just did not do anything I am aware of, but it happened anyway. And now it's changed back INCLUDING a vast improvement of SQ. And mind you, my Q1 never left its -2 setting, so it's not a SQ change from changing the Q1 in my case.

Also, IIRC it can well be that the time that people started to report that Q1 didn't influence all that much anymore, is the same time that the Q1 couldn't be as low for many. On that matter here's a small prediction : from of now the Q1 influences as much as before again ?


Peter

[andy74]

Hehe shrink huh?

Ok let's compare what I sense to what old people feel in their legs when the weather is about to change.

It's enough to have some minor injury in your body per say and it tells you when something is wrong.
It's like when you're healthy you just ignore minor pain it is all in your head, but when something starts to ache it will give new sensation. sixth seventh and so on. And you understand that it is not only your head where you dwell in.
Well it's funny Now but ....
And again it's nothing new.

You were asking for it.

Please don't call a doctor...

[andy74]

Forgot about business

I think it related somehow to the threads interactions, or their priorities.
I for example don't like RealTime priority or something above Normal. It gives the same thing.
And my wild guess is it progress bar syncing with playing thread

[andy74]

To follow up.

Did anyone tried unchecking this checkbox "playback devices => you device properies => advanced tab => Give exclusive mode applications priority"
For me there was a noticeable difference when I unchecked it.

It made u-6 listenable for me again. The last version I could bear was u-3 with Attended.

I wonder if it would change the SQ for someone else.

Andrey

[PeterSt]

Hey Andrey,

Not that I could have made that up myself, but now knowing it, to me it seems a kind of logic that that influences sound. But, thinking of what will be happening in there, I can only say that if it indeed does change sound, it seems like a "bug" to me.
Think of something checking (right in the middle of sound playing) whether another (application) wants to come in, which it should do when Exclusive Mode applications have priority. BUT, this should count for Shared Mode apps, and not for the Exclusive Mode apps.
It is my conclusion that now you should be able to interrupt Exclusive Mode apps (hence XX playing) with some other sound.

a. I can be wrong on this;
b. If not, this doesn't seem right to me

The latter because I'd say that this should be about the start of producing Exclusive Mode sound which now won't kill a Shared Mode sound. Not the other way around, that an Exclusive Mode sound can be killed by a Shared Mode sound. But try it, I think it does with that checkbox unchecked.

[andy74]

I don't understand. what should I try?

[SeVeReD]

I don't understand. what should I try?

Turn computer sounds on and see if you can make it "beep" while XXHE is playing?  i think