316
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: SQ differences in priorities, buffer sizes and split sizes - discussion
|
on: June 24, 2010, 03:05:41 pm
|
PS: And Marcin, I wanted to ask you what you do for a living, which you coincidentally just answered. Still I have the question, because it looks like you have ages of time for this all ! Added to that : your various reporting and sharing is much appreciated. I guess not only by me ...
I graduated IT and Econometrics. I've been IT journalist in CHIP magazine for few years. Currently CEO in 'interactive' agency (mostly public relations activities for IT/CE branch but also webdesign). The reason why I spend so much time on it is, that I want to start my own project, similar to Computeraudiophile. I've been gathering 'wisdom' for some time now and I have good (imho) topics for articles that you can't find anywhere over the net. Besides, I'm a musician too and, well, I love it.. Oh, did I mention that I'm 25? :D
|
|
|
317
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Tip to use QAP with lower latency
|
on: June 24, 2010, 11:11:58 am
|
Yes, I tried 100 times, it doesn't work. I have to play native 192kHz track first, then everything works. I don't think that I'll be able to do sth about it, because there is not much I could do, since there is nothing installed except for sound card drivers and XXHE. I've tried: - different PCs! - different drivers - different PCI slots - different PCI latency timer settings - OS optimizations (background services, programs, win32separaion, irq8priority and many others) - and of course different XXHE versions
What else do you suggest? I could try upgrading the firmware in my sound card, maybe that will do.
|
|
|
318
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / SQ differences in priorities, buffer sizes and split sizes - discussion
|
on: June 24, 2010, 11:01:30 am
|
Guys, I think it's time to discuss our experiences and preferences regarding different settings, but let's put the Engine and Q parameters aside. I'd like you to focus on: - Processor Appointment schemes - Player priority - Thread priority - Buiffer size - Split size Here are remarks froim my side. What you're about to read has been tested many times on 2 PCs. CPU Appointment schemeIn my opinion there are 3 settings worth mentioning; No Appointment, Scheme 2 and Scheme 3. Schemes 2 and 3 are musical flavoured and No Appointment is neutral flavoured. I prefer No Appointment myself, cause it's the most transparent. Scheme 2 has rich midds and delicate highs, good for vocal music IMHO. Scheme 3 however is more detailed in the upper area and with bass emphasis. All schemes sound better on a single core CPU. Player priorityThis has slight effect, but I don't know what sounds better - low or nothing. I'll investigate it. Thread priorityWhen it comes to playback thread priority, SQ depends on it a lot. Realtime is the most detailed and liquid, while high or normal (Nothing) are more relaxed. CPU's behaviour differs vastly in both cases as shown below. Buffer size1024 samples seems to be the sweat spot for me and my system. Higher values, especially 4096, give better imaging but overall characteristic become sharper and thus I prefer 1024. Split sizeCurrently I have it set at 64 MB. I don't know if it matters or not, but I'm kind of used to 8 multipliers (IT branch, sorry :D). Maybe Peter would shed some light on it. Is there any pattern for setting the split size, e.g. sample rate dependent? I read somewhere that smaller values work better with upsampling. I don't care about CPU/memory behaviour, there is only one thing on my mind, which is known Best regards, Marcin
|
|
|
323
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Tip to use QAP with lower latency
|
on: June 23, 2010, 01:36:42 pm
|
I don't know whether it is sotware or driver issue, but I've found a rule, how to make QAP playback possible where it's normally not with Engine 4 and low buffer settings (1024 and lower). I checked it multiple times on 2 PCs and 2 audio interfaces. The thing is, that every time I reboot, I have to play native 192 track before I start QAP listening session. Otherwise I get horrible distortions and 'to many buffer errors' message. I would like to emphasize that it happens with Cantatis Overture (PCI) and M-Audio Transit (USB), so 2 completely different devices and drivers. Peter, what do you think about it?
Also, anyone having trobles with quad arc prediction playback is welcome to try my approach. I am curious about the results.
|
|
|
326
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: SQ of 0.9z-1
|
on: June 21, 2010, 08:57:27 pm
|
Transparent, you say? Give me a favor and try this: 1. Run msconfig (from start menu, just type msconfig in search field) 2. Go to Boot tab -> Advanced options 3. Tick Number of processors, select 1, confirm 4. Restart 5. Play some music 6. Go back with remarks You may be able to set number of cores in BIOS, but I'm not sure if your mobo supports this.
|
|
|
328
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: SQ of 0.9z-1
|
on: June 21, 2010, 12:59:07 pm
|
PS. All listening was done with HDCD-encoding in XX switched off, Adaptive mode and with the buffer set to 4096.
Hi mani, Drastic changes, from 32 to 4096 samples? Did you get the PCI Adapter Case? Any other things on your mind? I've switched to my second PC, completely dedicated for audio purposes. I've removed almost everything (according to cics' recommendations and my own) - unnecessary services, drivers, registry entries. This is on a Biostar TA690G mATX mobo with dual core X2 3600+ underclocked to 800MHz (at 0.72V!). CPU temperature is only 19* at the moment :D Anyway, the sound is still a lot worse compared to my new PC. Most probably this is due to inferior motherboard's PSU section and PSU itself + regular HDD instead of SSD. Sound cards should have separate ps inputs and feed from external power source. That would make things easier...
|
|
|
|