0.9u-6 early thoughts

[Leo]

An evening of comparing quad and 'uno' SQ keeps my judgment as before. More to listen to, no lack of transients, no fatigue, new things to hear on well known music with the quad upsampling. Whether this joy and judgment are caused by the nonoversampling Altman  DAC in close cooperation with XX or by Dr Placebo I don't know. I am happy withit anyway.
And while I have my fun, Peter is working on his next improvement for the oversamplers of the world. Great division of labour

[PeterSt]

To clear things up maybe :

Mp3's may sound impressive, but will i.m.o never fit in the framework of highend.

OF COURSE not.
I gave it as an example how we can get fooled, with maybe the most important message : who actually can tell which sound stage is the most real for width and depth ?

I must admit though, that "laid back" is another phenomenon than "less deep". Or IOW : everything on the foreground (compare : right in your face) is different from everything in the background. Or maybe even better (though a negative) : everything being too loud cannot be compensated by a volume control.

[PeterSt]

But now take this :

There is plastic and there is metal (see earlier in this topic). Tonight, for the first time I listened to "decent" (because before it was just wrong) Double/Upsampling through my audio (nos !) DAC. Now :

I'm under the impression that the roughness (or rawness) as described earlier (btw not by me) coming from the nos DAC and XX since 0.9t (this latter is my own perceivement) is just compensated by this. All is very fragile, but still ... cymbals are more singing, and the sole thing ever occurring to me throughout albums was the better seprated bass (instruments) from all. So was this better ?

Maybe Yes, maybe No. Because I also noticed a downside (similar to yesterday with the Fireface) :
When the music gets more loud, things get too much shouting. This again is (IMO) about the higher frequencies no being able to fill gaps from the lower frequencies, that by itself possibly caused by the lower highs (volume) output. And so :

As how it worked always so far, it will work the same now : since I clearly perceive better things from upsampling (only Double this time), it will be a matter of finding a means to retain the positives, but eliminate the negatives. I don't know how yet though ... could be a matter of the pre-processing thing maybe ... I hope to get that ready tomorrow (for myself at least ).

[LydMekk]

Ok, have been playing with version 6 for some hours here now. Preliminary results, in MY system, with MY DAC.

Bass goes deeper with more impact down low (sub-regions) when I use both upsamp and double together, xx is set for 32/96 DAC. More physical bass deep down. In this case I also set my soundcards S/PDif to 88Khz for best "impact". Sound is clear, detailed and separated around each instrument, maybe too clear and detailed? Hmm. Difficult to say, but the better bass complements it well. Very wide soundstage, don't stop until it reaches my sidewalls.

Same settings but with the sound card set to 96Khz gives a kind of "ringing" in the high frequencies, a lot of SSSS-sounds in the treble etc. Not good.

Setting the SC to 44Khz, XX to 16/44 for DAC and turning off double and upsamp, gives a somewhat "kinder" and "round" sound, a little more "warm", not so much impact in the real deep bass, and a somewhat "simpler" image, not so much air on the stage. The bass impact seems to have moved to around 50-100hz up from deep down. The image seems a little more truncated against the middle of the stage and is limited sideways to the physical location of my speakers.

All of this is with different 16/44 material but using Fourplay-Journey-Play Around It for some detail comparisons more than other tunes.
 

[PeterSt]

Hi LydMekk,

Thank you very much for your description. If you only didn't copy mine I sure want to copy yours. And your description of the bass is better than my own; my "more separated" indeed intended to say something like more deep or maybe "in its own subwoofer world" (while I don't mean 20Hz regions, but something like the individual low vibes of e.g. bass guitar strings so good audible that it is like they sound through an undisturbed own speaker).

In this case I also set my soundcards S/PDif to 88Khz for best "impact".

[...]

Same settings but with the sound card set to 96Khz

But I don't understand what you mean by this ! or ... what your implied impact is. I mean, if I "set" my soundcard to e.g. 96KHz (instead of let it auto-adapt to what it's fed with e.g. 88K2), the song is played faster. Can you please explain ?

[LydMekk]

Feel free to copy me! 

Hey, it's not only me who's up at 03:30 in the morning! Cool... 

The 96Khz setting for my SC: When set to 96Khz and using double/upsampl, the DAC shows 96Khz when playing back 16/44 material. What happens is that 44 material is played back at 48 or 96hz depending on double or not. And you're right: it doesn't sound good, especially in the high freq.

But I also have better SQ steering the SC to 88Khz setting instead of letting XX upping from 44 to 88 automatically when using double/upsampl. God figure why...some of the "impact" gets lost if XX does it automatically.

Btw., not hearing much difference between only double or together with upsample. Earlier versions had more difference on this.

[LydMekk]

Ok, just wanted to say that as of now, with the SQ I have from XX and the promises from Peter about even better SQ in the future, I will NEVER buy another discplayer. End of story.

Of course, I forsee a lot of possibilities for better SQ as of this version (6) but we're definitely on the right track.

 

[LydMekk]

Anybody who's hearing a balance shift to the left side, e.g. less volum/level at the right side? Or is it my slight nosecold who's the culprit?

[PeterSt]

I went to bed afterall. You aparantly did not.

some of the "impact" gets lost if XX does it automatically.

You mean : when you check the Double/Upsample checkbox, right ?

I will NEVER buy another discplayer. End of story.

How much did you by this time of night ?

[manisandher]

Hi y'all,

I've just got back from a really hard day's work and thought I'd relax to a bit of music... through XX, of course.

I started with Claire Martin's 'Too Damn Hot!' album on 24/96 FLAC files. I couldn't stop listening - it just sounds amazing through XX...

I then compared this to my 16/44.1 wav files of the same album.

There is absolutely no question that no upsampling sounds closer to the 24/96 FLAC files than double or quad upsampling. In fact, the non-upsampled files are remarkably close to the FLACs. However, the 24/96 FLACs sound more musical - in short, they sound simply stunning.

... BUT...

... I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at upsampling.

I am now convinced that selecting 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1 KHz' is making the difference.

As Peter has already explained, in this mode the data is pre-processed.

My hypothesis is that for 24/96 FLAC files, the data is also pre-processed. The sound is simply too similar to 16/44.1 wav files with 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1 KHz'.

Peter, am I right?

If so, I think all of you upsampling guys are going to have a treat when Peter forces this to be pre-processed also.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Shoot Mani ...

My hypothesis is that for 24/96 FLAC files, the data is also pre-processed. The sound is simply too similar to 16/44.1 wav files with 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1 KHz'.

You're just Gold ...
At first I thought you couldn't be right, because at this moment I couldn't see how. Had my answers ready to justify your thoughts anyway, poored a special whiskey, and checked to be certain. Below snippet is from the preprocessing part ...

It actually says that the only thing it takes for the actual playback is adding the last byte (totalling to 32 bits) which needs no further processing, and FYI looks the same as something that needs no processing at all.
I really can't say how much I like someone who actually dares to state as you did at this super micro detail stuff, *and* is correct at the same time. Cudo's, hats off, anything. (can't recall I ever used this ).

Coming from this, I would like to say :

If there's someone in this world doubting that stupid software can make a difference to sound, might it be Queen Mary, O. Bin Laden, mr. G. etc. Bush, Bill Gates or anyone else thinking of ruling some parts of this world, let them read this, let them read into all the combinations possible here, and let them guess something which was just proven right in this occasion.
I know, my english is far from expressing what I want to make clear, and I sure hope it comes to you all as how I intend it.
And I wish to go further even :

Please allow me to quote you from the place we have met :

Here's what happens with the three audio applications I've tried:

1) XXHighend - bit-perfect output only with Engine #3
2) Windows Media Player - not bit-perfect (irrespective of which settings I use)
3) Foobar - only bit-perfect if ASIO driver is used

These results surprise me. Everything I've read about Vista suggests that the removal of KMixer has removed the necessity of using an ASIO driver with Foobar.

I'd love to hear others' views/experiences.

On a final note, I could not discern any difference between XXHighend (engine #3) and Foobar (ASIO) - both are superb and better my Esoteric P70 transport playing the same CD.

Mani.

It is not more than two weeks ago - and after you were slammed a bit as usual on the Internet - that following from this I tried to explain how to listen and what to listen for. I personally think it is more than quite amazing how you could evolve to, well, someTHING like this. But don't say I promised ... like in

The kind of "problem" is, that it needs some experience at knowing what to listen to. Knowing what the potential differences can be. And the most important of all : you need a reference.

So, apart from the valuable contributions from your hands (like the plots) now you can come up with this ? I really can't comprehend ...
I know from myself that the far most important on these kind of things is the, say, absolute memory which allows you to relate things, or better, make them relative to the reference (from that moment) I talked about in the quote. In fact this IMHO is about the ever so much importance of being able to listen through things, which comes down to taking distance from feelings, getting into technical details for comparison, and only when that fails, start with tapping the feet more differences.


I may sound rather stupid or wimpy-like in the majority of the above, but I just feel like expressing some feelings as an obligation to you Mani. I take it for granted when I'm a woman from now on. Can't be that bad anway.

Peter

[LydMekk]

I went to bed afterall. You aparantly did not.

NOPE.

some of the "impact" gets lost if XX does it automatically.

You mean : when you check the Double/Upsample checkbox, right ?

YEP.

I will NEVER buy another discplayer. End of story.

How much did you by this time of night ?

Nah, I wish - but not a good cognac in sight...maybe intoxicated on music, had this "just one more CD" train going through XX - not hitting the sack until 6.00...yuck...tired today.

[LydMekk]

Peter and Mani: Can't wait to hear the pre-processed upsampling routines! Maybe more of the "warm" and "more organic flow" will come forth, but my latest listening also confirms a pretty nice sound p.t.

Hey guys, maybe this latest combination of measurements of the digital outputs combined with listening is the right way forward. As you said Peter, the amount of code starts to get big with only listening as an correction method.

    

[andy74]

I am lost here.
Are you guys going away from bit perfect with your pre-processing data?
Is that is what is going on. Your posts are very confusing!!!

[edward]

I am now convinced that selecting 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1 KHz' is making the difference.

I'm a little confused too Andrey.

I have a question for Mani and LydMekk - are you saying you play 24/96 material with 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz'? And/or are you saying you are playing 16/44.1 material and are checking double but leaving at 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz'?

But I also have better SQ steering the SC to 88Khz setting instead of letting XX upping from 44 to 88 automatically when using double/upsampl. God figure why...some of the "impact" gets lost if XX does it automatically.

LydMekk - I still don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying you do not check double? What do you have your 'DAC is' set to?

Did I miss something? Peter, is it possible to play 16/44.1 (without checking double/upsample) when your DAC is expecting 24/88.2 or 24/96? What would the benefit of that be?