Q1 setting<>SQ

[hybride]

On this cold sunday i spend time to testing different settings of XX vs other players; XMplay, Jriver12, Foobar.
I used a song with a complex and loud begin with piano. My goal was to experience the tonality e.q. the natural consenance of instruments. To keep a long story short i found out that in my case i had to pull up Q1. The higher i set it, the more natural sound i get. Peter, you once mentioned that 'lower q1 should be better in terms of jitter'. Now i a have Q1=28! Tonality is ecxellent. Can you please give your opinion on this? Can Q1 made higher then 30? Where are the limits?
 

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... I don't recall that I said that the lower the Q1 the "better" jitter becomes. Besides that it isn't proved by all people.
I did say though, that as far as I can recognize, the soundcard's buffer should be as low as possible. So maybe you have that in mind ?

The upper range of Q1 as well as the lower range has its limits. These limits are actually there right now, although I must honestly say that the upper limit is related to somethings that is factullay unknown (by me), but together with that it is my reasoning that it shouldn't matter anymore above the upper limit from right now. One exception exists to this : that one exact Q1 number your DAC may respond upon for upper limits. This though, will always be too critical and too much depending on the performance of the PC itself. Too keep it simple : the DAC's buffer will underrun at this one special number.

Ok, despite all I still could increase the upper limit, just as I could increase the lower limit. The point is though, that increasing the upper limit goes along with a "resolution" that never suffices. Think of an logarithmic scale, and one step above the current limit would be a double sized one. What I said above still counts though, and it implies a necessary scale of something like 700 steps above the current 30, to reach 31. Relate this to the current 35 steps, and you'll see the unuseable thing coming from it.

Much more easy, would be a checkbox to double the resolution within one chosen number. Thus, when you have chosen e.g. 28, you then can choose from 27.5 to 28.5 in a 35 step resolution.
I always intended to make this, but it never came to that because other improvements caused more change to SQ. As a matter of fact, it stopped me from playing with Q1, while actually that should be done at each version that claims improvement on SQ. But as you will know now, it just takes too much time to do that after each upgrade (for me anyway !).

But I keep it in mind. It has been quite some time that someone mentioned explicit testing about the Q1 anyway.
And mind you, this will make me to try 28. One never knows ...

Thanks.

[hybride]

Only playing at 16/44, there is only Q1 to play with...

I also like to ask other XX-users to try Q1 on very low and very high setting and get attention to tonality of instruments.
Plz report your experience.  The difference is considerable, at least on my set.

[RX1]

I also use 16/44.1 as output so I too have played around with Q1 a bit (but I do play with upsampling using dCs Purcell instead - without getting much wise regarding what actually sounds best -always).

The first difficulty to overcome is ofcause what is your reference sound? Your CD player? The same album on LP (from maby another master, or at least mixed differently (but hopefully not "mastered to dead" like many CD's these days (aka - to high volume so dynamic is unrepearable lost)))? Just your personal taste (of that precisly album) or something else?

I have tried to use my dCs Verdi transport as a reference, but to not have to make to many changes I have to compare CD sound upsampled to DSD, with XX throu either just DAC (16/44.1) or throu upsampler as well (to DSD). I think already I have enough parameters to play with here, and then start with Q1 adjustment (puh!). Now, I have almost made no expences into PC based music yet, just a HagUSB so far - I am only testing if this is the way to go....

Anyway, so far I my plaiying around with Q1 has made me think that low values < 0 adds somthing like a little bit chorus to the sound, but also some hardnes (a bit to much "digital" sound, most noticable in the treble I think). > 14 (up to 28 - can't go further without noice) I think the sound gets rounded of somwhat - sounds maby softer and more plesant, but without any bite - or snatch. Might be like a reduction of treble (maby over 10Khz) or an increase of mid-tone?

Now, I have played at Q1 = 0 for a while, and today also tested the range 0 - 14. I think I aim for something around 0 - 4, but I am very much in doubt.... I have wanted to ask Peter if there is a "normal" level - where software does *nothing*? Is there such a place, and could you explain what Q is supposed to add?

Rolf

[PeterSt]

Hi Rolf,

I think your observations are right.

As far as I reasoned it, the lower values indeed should sound more digital, but this is (should be) because of more accuracy.
When indeed you perceive a more digital sound, this can be fought back by means of the Core Appointment settings. For me clearly setting 3 does that. Beware, because the Core Appointment settings will not workout the same over systems.

With Q1 higher, hence assumed less accuracy, you will get a more liguid sound. But with less detail, and bass may get more fumbling because of it. "Liquid" is not the best description because for me that goes along with the most accuracy and e.g. the most square sound from synthesizers. It finishes off though, things start to fit.
YMMV because when the accuracy - that going along with needed speed of e.g. amps (and speakers) - cannot be followed, you'll get ringing and destortion by it. In that case it is better to have Q1 higher, so things can follow and *then* it's more liquid.

With an oversampling DAC you can hardly incur for following squares from synths, because the os DAC already will destroy that into sines, but at the highest frequencies it may work out better (because in the nos DAC they are just too square (a 22050 HZ sine just *is* a plain square in the digital wave)).

All together it is rather complex, and you have to know your system in order to know what you can - but also should achieve.
If you want to know what your amps can do according to speed, move your pre-amp out of the way (but be careful !), and try what you think of that. If it is clearly worse (too harsh) you'd know that you shouldn't aim for more accuracy, and better go for the more rounding.

In each occasion, try it with UnAttended playback. Only that is under my control for SQ, and only there you can have a reference yourself for later (or earlier) versions. Also, UnAttended is more accurate by itself (or in a controlled fashion anyway).

Peter

[hybride]

The first difficulty to overcome is ofcause what is your reference sound? Your CD player? The same album on LP (from maby another master, or at least mixed differently (but hopefully not "mastered to dead" like many CD's these days (aka - to high volume so dynamic is unrepearable lost)))? Just your personal taste (of that precisly album) or something else?

You are right, but it isn't so difficult for me personal to find a static reference in case of tonality. It has nothing to do with hardware references. I listen to the sound of wood. Say from a basguitar or piano. And ok, thats personal, but hearing en 'feeling' the wood of such instruments is very hard to achieve with reproduction. When hearing it once, you'll never forget this emotion. And i heared it several times throughout the years. It is one of the characteristics wanted. But it is so damned hard to get them all in one set of equipment.