V6a vs. W3 SQ

[LydMekk]

sigh...

Have been using v6a so far. Downloaded W3 tonight. What the he.. happened to the sound?
The whole register doesn't expand like the older version.
The whole thing sounds closed and kind of amputated, the music doesn't "breathe". Almost like there's an dynamic limiter active. Peter, you haven't gone overboard on your "standing wave war front" ? Something is not right...

Updated my profile for the latest settings.

Using .wav 16/44 standard EAC.

Gone back to v6a for my sake.

W3 lost a whole lot of "musicality" IMO.

Have not tried the versions between v6a and W3.

My 2 cents.

[PeterSt]

I think at 0.9w-1 I anounced that the sound has become more "lean" to the sense of it being more easy to flow out of the speakers.
So yes, something has changed. But it was unintentional (I know where/what it is though).

It is true that since then I am kind of struggeling myself whether it is better or not, because it seems to have aspects that are better for sure (to my ears).

You do have the "Split file at size" at the default of 2500, right ?

I will reinstall 0.9v6 and listen for a good while, but I think I already agree ...

[LydMekk]

Have not changed any settings beyond the ones listed in my signature, no. "Split file..." thats in W3 right? Didn't change anything like that. Removed W3 now and only using v6a ATM.

Btw...having some VERY good SQ here now from v6a! 

V6a sound better with Double and Upsample OFF, e.q. running 16/44 vanilla.

Extremely musical and organic, involving sound here now with v6a.

And again, only using plain .wav'es. No FLAC, MP3 etc.

GOOD MORNING, btw, P! 

[PeterSt]

Yeah, I recall you were a "double" fan ? so at last got rid of that ? hahaha


Btw, the fact that I know what changed, does not imply it will be easy to restore that in the current version. Quite impossible.
Challenge challenge challenge.

[joerg]

Hi,

Just wanted to chime in with a similar observation after switching to 09-w3 yesterday. It took only a couple of songs to notice that the sound is overly lean in my system and seem truncated in the low frequency response. When I first used XXHighEnd it was only slightly leaner than my other player software, but it was good in a way of providing more details, lighter flow of music while keeping a good balance and the low notes were precise and less bloated. With w3 I find the low notes to be too absent and the mid to highs in turn sound a bit to sterile to be enjoyable. I'll yet have to experiment a bit more with settings to see if changes can be made for the better, but with just transferring the settings I had with the last -v version I was using it does not sound right to me at all...

Best regards

Joerg

[SeVeReD]

sigh...

Have been using v6a so far. Downloaded W3 tonight. What the he.. happened to the sound?
The whole register doesn't expand like the older version.
The whole thing sounds closed and kind of amputated, the music doesn't "breathe". Almost like there's an dynamic limiter active. Peter, you haven't gone overboard on your "standing wave war front" ? Something is not right...

Updated my profile for the latest settings.

Using .wav 16/44 standard EAC.

Gone back to v6a for my sake.

W3 lost a whole lot of "musicality" IMO.

Have not tried the versions between v6a and W3.

My 2 cents.

Hi,
Since I'm going to be working on going back and forth on SSD vs HDD, could you give v6a vs v7 a whirl... just to make sure there are no differences there.  I'm using v7 at the moment and have v6a, but don't want to change anthing but harddrives till I get a handle on things.  Still no listening until tonight peter, but making sure everything set up like on my SSD right now.

[PeterSt]

Hahaha Dave, you just pointed out to me there's a 0.9v7 as well.
Have been using 0.9-v6a tonight and hated it for lacking functionality (wow, one gets used to things quickly !).

I can safely tell you that all the changes that can influence SQ are not in 0.9v7.

[PeterSt]

LydMekk, Joerg too : 


All,

I can't emphasize more on please COMPLAIN when you have the idea that something is wrong soundwise. You for sure won't embarrass me with it, and in the end it will help yourself.
I have only two ears and two speakers, and for sure won't claim they are the absolute best.

Usually I know when something can be changed for SQ and then I announce it. Like here, from 0.9w-1 :

Might you encounter changes in sound quality ... it can ... but then it was unintentional.

be extra-alert in such a case. Even if you are not sure, please share.

Peter

[JohanZ]

Hahaha Dave, you just pointed out to me there's a 0.9v7 as well.

I have listened today to the following versions of XX v6a, v7, w1, w3..... and still I am a great fan of v7.

Johan

[Calibrator]

Well now, this is an eye-opener!

Since the start of the 'W' series of XXHE I have been enjoying the benefits of the much quicker startup and general functionality improvements, and have actually been spending a lot of time just sitting and listening to album after album for hours on end. My enjoyment has been good, not having to worry about XXHE stalling or having any occassional glitch.

When I read the start of this thread yesterday I wondered whether the sound quality really had taken a different path so this morning I plonked on 09v-6a again and fired up some 24/96 tracks of Diana Krall. I played "When I Look In Your Eyes" under 0.9w-3 firstly and everything seemed OK .... usual silky smooth tones and I was able to easily discern the tongue "clicks' in between breaths and phrases. I then played the same track under 0.9v-6a, and it was like a veil had been lifted! Soundstage had been tightened up markedly and everything had a more precise feel about it.

I tried different tracks and different albums ( all Diana Krall in 24/96 ), swapping back and forth between versions and the results were the same in my mind. 0.9v-6a simply sounded better .. no doubt about it.

So .. a lesson to be learned here. Changes in sound quality may gradually alter between versions and may not be readily apparent between one version to the next, but can be accumulative in nature. Being eager to install the latest version before having the previous versions SQ firmly embedded in the brain may not necessarily be the best way to tackle upgrades.

Hopefully Peter can revert back to the SQ of 0.9v-6a while maintaining the glitch free and ergonomics that 0.9w-3 brings.

Thanks go to LydMekk for having the patience to stick with 0.9v-6a for so long before trying the latest. The SQ derailment may have gone unnoticed if not for that.

I guess I'll be sticking with 0.9v-6a again for a while ( and will revisit 0.9v-7 )

Cheers all,

Russ

[LydMekk]

You're welcome Calibrator. 

[pedal]

I have not kept my eyes (ears) on the changes of XX lately, due to all the progress and benefits from Audiolense software, recently implemented in my system.

But a quick A-B test today reveals that my w1a sound very good. But v6a sounds even better. Judging from listening to a few cuts, there is a slight hardnes to the midrange of w1a. The v6a is more organic, slightly more resolved and natural. Voices has more natural dynamic shadings. v6a also draws a (slightly) bigger soundscape. There is (slightly) more dynamic "drama" in v6a than w1a.

Kudos to LydMekk for crying out. He deserves a prize, Peter! 

[PeterSt]

Kudos to LydMekk for crying out. He deserves a prize, Peter! 

Oh sure , but he already received my love !! Have to share that with my wife now. But here's another :
hehe

But it is so true how important it is that at least ONE person pays attention here !
Just look how things went overhere :

1. In order to split the large files (a longer (very legitimate) pending request from JohanZ), half of XXEngine3 had to be turned upside down.
2. Because I had to test that, from then on I started playing with 12MB file parts. I heard clicks between the parts though (never knowing when the parts exactly split *and* I hear clicks since my preamp was removed, the unity gain buffer being there instead (so, without the buffer I never heard clicks, and the clicks should be there for everybody in between tracks. Not that I ever received such a message (since that was solved many months ago)).
3. I kept on listening to the small file parts, and it was my idea that *that* caused the more "lean" sound. Lean for me : better fluent, and not exactly tinny (as how I think Joerg meant it).
4. Although I didn't like the sound much, I kept on listening to the small parts and never went back, and again kept on thinking it would be the small parts (with the explanation on memory boundaries as I expressed elsewhere).
5. Then the SSD came in; As I explain it now, that change emphasizes "accuracy". The sound now was the most bad. Indeed the mids (the base sound of cymbals) got over-expressed, and things started hissing all over, with the most bad signature of all cymbals starting to sound the same. The harmonics (singing of cymbals) disappeared (or got overwhelmed by the mid freuqencies), standing waves in the mid area (voices) started to buzz, and lastly the bass output just went wrong (too much of the wrong -> not tight and standing waves in that area again).
6. I went back to the spinning disk, and all seemed to be okay again. But mind you, all is relative and I still didn't like the sound much (the small file parts still being active).
7. Then LydMekk posted.

The rest is known.
It is exactly as Calibrator said : When the one stupid LydMekk had not been around, maybe nobody had noticed, and by the time I would have switched off the small file parts I would have been sad for not the best sound still, BUT THEN I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WHERE TO START LOOKING. Remember, there are no switches "good - better - best sound" in there. I wish it were that easy ...

Peter


PS: You read well : In the earlier versions (like 0.9v-6a) there are very tiny clicks (one "vinyl tick") between tracks. I wonder whether anybody can hear them.

[SeVeReD]

Throwing my thanks out to LydMekk and those who paid attention to the version change.

LydMekk, Joerg too : 


All,

I can't emphasize more on please COMPLAIN when you have the idea that something is wrong soundwise. You for sure won't embarrass me with it, and in the end it will help yourself.
I have only two ears and two speakers, and for sure won't claim they are the absolute best.

Usually I know when something can be changed for SQ and then I announce it. Like here, from 0.9w-1 :

Might you encounter changes in sound quality ... it can ... but then it was unintentional.

be extra-alert in such a case. Even if you are not sure, please share.

Peter

This is the reason I never got around to trying the W version.  One, I was just too happy with my new system running V7 and after Peter mentioned there might be SQ differences I wanted to wait until it was a good time for me to evaluate.  Glad you all did it for me... call me lazy bones.

[Calibrator]

A quick bit of feedback between SQ from 0.9v-6a and 0.9v-7 ....

... if there is any difference between them it is far too subtle for my 'ol brain to discern 

Cheers,

Russ