0.9y-4 - w00t

[PeterSt]

Hi Leif,

Yes, there sure is according to what -thus far without exception- everbody tells just without applying upsampling in XXHE. However, thus far with only 1 exception, everybody just applying the upsampling onto OS DACs is even more satisfied.

So I was actually awaitening your response from the ESS Sabre !
Go for it ! (and let me know please)

Thanks,
Peter

[leifchristensen]

hello P
will try this weekend
be back tom or sun
until then: have a nice weekend
best
Leif

[manisandher]

... thus far with only 1 exception, everybody just applying the upsampling onto OS DACs is even more satisfied.

I'd be very interested in hearing people's thoughts on the following:

1. engage double or quad upsampling
2. select 'No upsampling' - take a listen
3. select 'Arc Prediction' - take a listen
4. what are the differences between 2 and 3?

It would be interesting to see if there is ever the case where (with certain DACs) 2 could sound better than 3.

Mani.

[Fidelio]

... thus far with only 1 exception, everybody just applying the upsampling onto OS DACs is even more satisfied.

I'd be very interested in hearing people's thoughts on the following:

1. engage double or quad upsampling
2. select 'No upsampling' - take a listen
3. select 'Arc Prediction' - take a listen
4. what are the differences between 2 and 3?

It would be interesting to see if there is ever the case where (with certain DACs) 2 could sound better than 3.

In my system, upsampling causes worse timing and flow. Both alt. 2 and 3 sounds less like music than vanilla, I am not sure if upsampling with or without Arc Pred is the worst, but quad clearly sounds worse than double. Mind you, "worse" is relative here, it still sounds good, but I am not willing to trade an ounce of PRaT against more detail and space.

The DAC on my card is a Wolfson WM8740 I think.

And let me just add that with the below settings, y-4 sounds sodding fantastic here.

[leifchristensen]

hello P
I´ve just been reminded why I haven´t thrown this software and replaced it by Itunes!
The y4 works great!
1st impressions
right "out of the box" same settings as y3a, it sounds better resolved in the mids and up.(slightly) improved midrange and up dynamics
funny but the soundstage is denser in the centre with better depth,maybe a little narrower but the channels hangs better together. my ss width is maybe narrowed from 6,5 to 5,5 meters but with better centrefill.
bestr with arc pred and quad ? may that be correct?
q 2 and q3 tested down to 0 but too dull and reset to 15 on both
IMO
well done
will be back L8R when lived a little with these settings
best
Leif

[PeterSt]

Hi there Leif,

maybe narrowed from 6,5 to 5,5 meters but with better centrefill.

I must admit that with the earlier y versions I received remarks from people about what I had done to the sound stage in my own room  because it had gotten so wide (this was not negative by itself). So I guess it is back to more normal now perhaps ?

bestr with arc pred and quad ? may that be correct?

For me sure it is, and for all except Fidelio too (unless they can't do Quad, but then Double is the best).

You may have read though, that I can't reason out yet why this would be (the best) with OS DACs. So if you (later) have comments about what you perceive from it, it may be useful for me to further improve on this (ha, right, I didn't say I was ready with it !).
Of course I now the ESS Sabre (24 bit version) so you can talk in "Sabre" language and I will understand I think. I don't have it connected anymore, so I can't (easily) check myself.
The more people this works for, the better it is of course.

Peter

[leifchristensen]

hello again
short update
general improvement even more obvious on high rez material except of course I had to set the xx to no oversampling!
better resolution gives better sight into the ss
best
Leif

[boleary]

Geeze, I'm not sure what's better anymore. In my system I basically have two 24/96 dacs. The first, an M-Audio Audiophile usb, I use to convert my usb connection to spdif (it sucks as a dac). From there it goes to an older MSB Gold link III. I have no idea how good (jitter free?) the conversion from usb to spdif is. The MSB has a toggle switch for upsampling which allows me to upsample to either 96 or 132K. To date, with every version of xx I have used, the upsampling to 96k is turned on; this setting very much reduces what I perceive as digital harshness. However, with all types of music, I have to leave the Q1 setting of xx at 14 or I reintroduce what feels like digital harshness back into the sound (lately Ive been at 30,30,0,0 for the other Q settings). To my very uneducated ears this setup has blown away an elite series pioneer cdp and a camelot merlin transport I have used in the past. One could say I have become very used to, perhaps even addicted, to this (distorted?)sound.

Along comes 9y-4 with arc prediction upsampling which I am able to use at the double setting. At this setting, I am now able to turn off the upsampling of the MSB and I am, for the first time, able to change my Q1 setting from 14 to 4 and the sound seems to just get better (not sure if this will work for classical music). With this set up the sound is  different but I'm just not sure if its always better. When I have the volume at divorce inducing levels (as my wife will tell you, the system is in the living room) 9y-4 is better--I can go significantly louder before the sound begins to seriously distort. However, at quieter levels my 9y-3a setup, MSB doing the upsampling, seems more "present" or maybe slightly louder is the best way to describe it. Another way to describe the difference is that the 9y-4 settup sounds more refined but subdued, more like a studio recording, and when the MSB does the upsampling the sound feels less dry and more "in the room", or more like a live recording. Does this make sense?

At this point I'm on the fence. Am going to just listen to 9y-4 for a while and see if I'm moved one way or the other. (Am sort of suspicious that the usb to spdif conversion is probably compromising the 9y-4 setup.)

Oh, I haven't compared 9y-4, without arc prediction upsampling, to 9y-3a.

[SeVeReD]

Anyway, I said lower was better because when I've left it at 128 sample (after listening to 24/96 and forgetting to set it back) and listening to regular 44.1 in the past it did not sound as good as when set back to 48 samples ... so, just figured lower sample rate was better.  Anyway, running it at 64 samples seems to work well and FF settings says it's a 88.2 signal it's sending to dac... so, alls well so far, nothing falling apart.

I don't want to muddy up the forum, but I want to address a change I've made with the Fireface 800 in case others have it and are trying settings... Right now I'm going back and forth between FF800 settings of 64 samples and 128 samples and for some reason, with this upsampling arc prediction, I think 128 samples sounds better.  This is kinda baffling to me because I thought if it plays at a lower buffer sample rate that that would sound better, like it always has with 44.1 material in the past. oh well.

[Fidelio]

Oh, I haven't compared 9y-4, without arc prediction upsampling, to 9y-3a.

You should try, y-4 without AP and oversampling is the best sounding XXHE so far - by far (in my system, that is). Especially in the groove department. Tried out a few arias from Orlando Finto Pazzo (Vivaldi's third opera) today, and they rocked just as much as Queens of The Stone Age at full volume.

[PeterSt]

Keep in mind guys ... this whole things has been created especially and explicitly for NOS/Filterless, and if it works out wrongly there - or I did something wrong, or there's something wrong with you system. But :

With OS/Filtering it "should not" work, although hard to proove for me at this moment, and the evidence is merely against my own thinking.
Apart from your evidence Fidelio.

So keep in mind these completely different two leages; anyone saying that Arc Predection works out for the better on OS is *not* stupid, and anyone with OS sayng that without Arc Prediction works out for the better should be right. But all may heavily depend on the kind of filtering with OS. I don't know yet. So, everbody is right, which btw always is the case in here. Nevertheless I really really like to hear from more and what they perceive.

As always, thanks.
Peter

[Gerard]

Peter,

Maybe a bit like musterd after diner 

I have been able to play for a few day's now and my findings are: Pure and crystal clear. The bass is unbelievable and very well placed. Had to lower it a bit though. (Never done that....)

Indeed the best so far and as you know just 16/44..... 

Grtz

[Fidelio]

Apart from your evidence Fidelio.

Being in a massive minority, I have been trying out AP vs no AP some more. My clear opinion is still that AP kills the "natural" aspect of the music, making it sound, while very detailed and neuanced, a bit hard and dull. Makes me wanna change songs.

Had my wife switch between AP and vanilla this evening (omg she thought I was a nut) without me knowing what played, and it was extremely easy to say if AP was on every time, especially with rock. AP makes rock shouty, vanilla makes rock rock. AP also makes sibilants more aggressive.

Mind you, my speakers are a bit particular, very dry and detailed, and very fast, which makes me sensitive to timing. I don't really give a fuck about soundstage and 3d and space and what not, only the groove. In light of this, I have probably chosen the wrong speakers, since they throw a massive soundstage and have a bag full of traditional round earth hi-fi qualities. However, when one gets it right with the other gear, they are probably the best flat earth speakers ever with tons of boogie.

My point is that, with these preferences, you can see what I think is important in a system and the reason I don't like AP.

I propose a test. Find a track you KNOW makes you want to move your body. Turn the volume loud, but not so loud that it's unpleasant. You should feel the bass slightly (no headphones here use speakers), but it should still be comfortable volume-wise.

Now, turn on AP, preferably with Quad but Double works too. Play the track for a minute. Play it again for a minute. Now turn off AP and any upsampling. Play the track again. Does it make you wanna move more?

[manisandher]

Sorry Fidelio, but I think you're missing the point here.

Others won't be able to replicate your experience, unless they have the same gear that you do. For example, your experience is totally the opposite of mine. But I'm not surprised, because we don't have the same gear (apart from my WB Chimeras).

But this is OK... and actually to be expected, I think, from what Peter has said.

Mani.

[Fidelio]

Sorry Fidelio, but I think you're missing the point here.

Others won't be able to replicate your experience, unless they have the same gear that you do. For example, your experience is totally the opposite of mine. But I'm not surprised, because we don't have the same gear (apart from my WB Chimeras).

But this is OK... and actually to be expected, I think, from what Peter has said.

I agree; however, I wasn't trying to get anyone to agree with me, I was more wondering what parametres people judge their SQ by. AP sounds more detailed and airy here than non-AP, but that does not mean I like it better than the non-AP sound. The two settings are distinctly different in my setup, and I was wondering if others are of the same opinion, and if so, how they differ.

btw, great sodding speakers you have there m8 What do you use to drive them?