0.9y-1d ... wow!

[PeterSt]

Hey Ivo,

I could respond to each of your questions or statements and it even might be useful or interesting. What is less useful I guess, is that you don't believe me in what I tell, advising to use Unattended in the first place. Next, I see no reason in "defense" so to say, on things I said in the first place (if it were the other way around, maymaymaybe ).

That you can't get what this is all about, I can't help. But this is why I do this and you do that.

Yes I sure understand that you feel I destroyed your sound (that assumed -> destroyed), but if you buy a car, and the sales man tells you to never shift from 1 to 3 hence don't skip 2, I guess because you know better you skip 2 afterall, and claim some money when the thing falls apart ? This sure looks like your post !

Never mind what I think about it, I SURE (which means SURE) understand how you feel. But then again this is exactly why Unattended was created, just to AVOID such a situation. I guess you were already there when it was created for the first time ?

You may not see it, but in XXHighEnd some 15000 lines of code were added in between 0.9x and 0.9y. I would guarantee for a million sound would change, whithout a single listen.

Question : can it be so that you perhaps never understood what this is all about ? I mean, if I tell you once again that both 0.9x and 0.9y are as bit perfect as can be ... maybe you didn't expect that ? well, it is. So it is external influences changing the sound. When one line of code is inserted at a crucial point, it already does.

Let me make a topic for this, I planned that anyway (coming up -> The Sound of your PC).
Peter


PS: But ask ahead whatever you want, as long as it does't show toooo much "i.....", ok ? hahaha

[ivo]

OK, Peter, I see you are a serious guy
I will then step back from this thread leaving myself in this state:

Addition of 15000 lines of code to 0.9x has improved bass response which is great AND has degraded for some amount the highs response.
The next I will do is try to find ways of getting back the great highs with version 0.9y by experimenting with settings and playback modes. If I manage then I will know what other (1500-bass improvement lines) have done to the code.

Ivo

[PeterSt]

Wrong solution ! Right after you managed (which will most probably NOT be the case) you can start all over because of an upgrade ...

You should use Unattended, and complain on that one as much as necessary !!
I'm serious.

[AUDIODIDAKT]

I honestly find the difference between Unattended and Attended has become bigger in the new version of xx.

Unattended has become the standard for me.

Have to say going in and out unattended has become much better (more understandeable, seeing xx loading files to C: is a good thing)

And when in Unattended you are still in control, because xx has become faster, so you in and out, just like that

Hope we will loose those other sevices too, because I think I can "hear" them.

[AUDIODIDAKT]

And,

When swapping the Spinning disc for a SSD, I have reported that I have lost some bass.

But have that back now, with this new version (and much better)

For me an the other hand, thought my hights has become much better.
Because my tweeters and X-over, are finaly getting good data in that area.

So I don't have to put extra resistor in there. (for months I have that on my to do list, but not anymore)

My calculations were right, the problem was the source. (not really talking about xx, but all cr*ppy cd-players outhere)

Did some testing with a friend of mine last friday,
- full load pc and HDD, and listening to Foobar
- just Foobar
*- XX with full load PC and HDD (differences are hugh now)*
- and xx Unattended (at thist point I get a WOW from him, before he felt off his chair)


*CORRECTED*

[Telstar]

- and xx Unattended (at thist point a get a WOW from him, before he felt off his chair)

OK, I now gotta try unattended again

[PeterSt]

Before people get confused, let me add this :

Assuming Engine#3 of course ...
Running Attended vs. Unattended really uses the exact same Audio Engine (program, XXEngine3.exe). That behaves 100% the same (which is since 0.9y and before it played quite the same, but it was not 100% the same because of the way it grabbed the files to play).

So ... might you hear a difference (before falling of the chair) ... the only difference is that the GUI has gone. The GUI (program) really does NOTHING to the sound explicitly. But it influences anyway ... (again, out of my control, sorry).
The differences (all indirect) become more when those Services are shut down, which won't (or shouldn't) happen with Attended (because all starts to look real ugly).

If it's not clear, ask away.

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

Unattended is definitely better than attended; no doubt about that. However with my set up I still find that the high's are a bit harsh & bold. Tried various Q settings but none improved this. Wonder what is causing this since it appears that I am probably the only one hearing this?

Arvind

[AUDIODIDAKT]

Hi Peter,

Unattended is definitely better than attended; no doubt about that. However with my set up I still find that the high's are a bit harsh & bold. Tried various Q settings but none improved this. Wonder what is causing this since it appears that I am probably the only one hearing this?

Arvind

Hey Arvind,

Not emplying anything here, just out of interest, can I see your speaker specs and x-over layout.

Like I said just out of interest.


Grtz Audiodidakt (Roy)

[PeterSt]

Arvind,

You might try a higher Q1 to start with. Use 14 which is a nice Joe-average. If anything, a too low Q1 (though it depends on the system) may make the sound more "digital". It will be more detailed as well, but it can be over the top.

Next, try setting Invert (On). It may be a difference of night and day.

Generally try to imagine that things will be more "sharp". If all is right more accurate, but this means "sharper". So, it is not said that this may workout for the better in your system, although you would be the first one where "better" is perceived as "less".

Do you have "zooming" noises in your room (IOW standing waves, which may occur at any frequency)? if so, you might - no, will have an impedance problem somewhere. If you feel this may be the case, for fun try without preamp. That will be way MORE "sharp". Does it get better ? then your preamp can't cope.

All rather wild guesses.
Take some time at analysing it. And ... keep in mind what I said earlier, the current version you have out there may not be the best (wrong memory useage). So that may be a reason too, and you may be hearing things the others can't. But this is related to your system of course (and I think it was you who started "high resolution system" ... I think I have just that ... ).

Note : I believe you. Until otherwise proven. Ok ?

[LydMekk]

Hi Peter,

Unattended is definitely better than attended; no doubt about that. However with my set up I still find that the high's are a bit harsh & bold. Tried various Q settings but none improved this. Wonder what is causing this since it appears that I am probably the only one hearing this?

Arvind

I have the same here. Well, not harsh really, but too high in level. Pointed that out earlier regd. the new versions, sounds like theres too little level of bass compared to the rest of the spectrum, and then the top will stand out.

Don't know if this is something Peter has designed to go better with his own equipment?

Something like Windows Media Player e.g. has a much more balanced recital of the frequency range, but of course all the nice staging etc. from XX goes down the drain.

[LydMekk]

To the above, yes, have played with the Q-controls. Doesn't help. The only thing these does is softening/hardening the playback somewhat.

I have suggested it earlier, give us a possibility to implement convolver filters or just add a simple 8-10 band graphical EQ into the player so we can pull down the highs etc. in a system where that is overpowering.

[arvind]

Hi Peter/Roy/LydMekk,

Ok now with all the suggestions the best of the lot is Q=14/0/0/0/0 & Invert. This gives the least harshness with the high's; though I still feel its not good enough. Sharpness is good to the point it does not hurt or fatigue the ear.
I dont have standing wave problem in my room, have installed bass traps as per the freq/dB chart. My preamp & amps are of the same make so impedance matching problem would be highly remote.
Roy, my speakers are Ascendo System M (ascendo.de) the Xovers are 80Hz & 3200 Hz. Tweeters are Ribbon's.

LydMekk, I dont a problem with the Bass as a matter of fact it is spectacular but the mid's could be warmer & the High's are harsh & bold; probably that is why the Mid's are not coming out so warm.

I am using the 0.9y-2 version of XX.

Arvind

[PeterSt]

Well, as expected, Arvind's speakers look better than Roy's. Hahaha, I said "look".
If they are piano black of course.

Let's wait for 0.9y-3 and judge again. I think it will be different.


Arvind, don't underestimate the "phase resonse" in general. It has come forward more than once in here : different versions seem to express a difference to that respect. That is why I suggested the inversion of the absolute phase. You may also see that at lowering Q1 at some stage you may need to invert again ...
Especially when you're into accurate time alignment, it well may be that it needs adjustment; this is about the same subject. And no, you can't do that with random other software (calibrate) because that won't express like XXHE does it.
But wait for the new version first (couple of days).

Peter

[Telstar]

Roy, my speakers are Ascendo System M (ascendo.de) the Xovers are 80Hz & 3200 Hz. Tweeters are Ribbon's.

Well, well, some ribbons do indeed sound harsh. they have a bump in the very HFs. And that's not the source fault.
I'll wait for y3, but i suspect that y version compared to x is more transparent and truthful.

I also would like the chance to add VST plugins, but that's not happening because it woudl compromise the SQ (Peter's words and I believe him).
There will be FIR filters and one can add the equalization in those (by means of secondary programs and not with realtime controls).