numlog, do you parhaps have a name we can address you with ? actually it is an unwritten rule that people should not be anonymous. And this is merely for recognition (say when it is a year after, etc.). Thanks.


Then first an actually not related remark :



It may surprise you that this is for several reasons worse then the copying implied otherwise. One of the things is loading speed (from Playlist Area to Unattended Playback). You can watch it yourself by means of the progress of the highlight (on track) bar of the tracks being processed). With WAV it is one by one; with FLAC it is as many in parallel as your processor has cores available.

Peter

Hi Tim,

No, not 4 screens. Just 3 as the other ^2 cables but with one always connected (fixed) and this is the W(hite). So this part is now not configurable.
Notice that B(lack) is always the connector end.


Oh they are, when you configure it to be so. But I suppose that is what you meant anyway.

Best regards,
Peter

This is more complicated once you see the relation with XTweaks in XXHighEnd. I guess you do, but just saying ...

Peter

Btw, Ramesh, it seems evident that the lower dynamics (but this is mere higher frequency stuff) cause the depth to deminish. I am just observing after I read your post ...
Quite similar to adding F-M highs to your Orelo MKII speaker (adds spaciousness).

Regards,
Peter

Thank you, Ramesh !

Robert, I suppose this is the same problem as the Q1 x xQ1 being too high together with the low SFS. This means
a. lower the Q1 x xQ1;
b. I must solve the same problem (somehow).

I suppose this is related to processor speed as well (timing). But not sure ! Just wait until I solved it (hopefully).

Thank you for sharing !!
Peter

All,

Today I will be into my 6th day of

A:B-Y, B:

(indeed nothing connected on the B side)

I keep on explicitly noticing how natural this one is. Detail is still exhorbitant, width is normal, depth is again relatively shallow. I suppose this latter contributes to "naturalness". And if my theory hols that sound should not be spread too much (like the width is OK now) then a bit of less depth may encourage accuracy ? (naturalness)

It won't be easy for me to take this one out again, so I am not sure when to test something new (or back to "the one with consensus" first, for that matter).

Peter

Dear Zheng,


I think I said SFS, but it is about what you mention (the net Q1 value). This is not related to a too meager PC etc., but it relates to how a larger buffer is dealt with internally. With the smaller settings it will still "cut" at the change of format or end of the playlist, but you may not be able to detect it any more. Say that a Q1 of 1x 11 implies a cut off of 100ms then 10x 11 implies 1000ms (one second). And so on. The speed of the PC does not matter to this.

Kind regards,
Peter

Hahahaha - That could be the best way !

Nick, I will try that (A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-Y) for sure.
Thanks a lot,
Peter

Mani, I don't think that you referred to your config which was "not exactly the same" and you merely refer to your judgment, right ?
I mean, your config was not the same in any of your listed trials ... (that I can see).

Kind regards,
Peter

I now think that people can save the trouble of trying this
A:B-W-Y, B:B-W.

At the third day I got totally crazy of too much energy. Too much buzzing with it - at least how I perceive it.
Because this seems highly related to some burn-in process (or maybe groundloop build-up ?) I will try it tonight once again, but if it starts out the same as how it did yesterday, I will revert to
A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
within20 seconds.

Yesterday it was literally killing. Super super tiring, although no harsh sound anywhere. Explosive energy. I don't know what really happens ...

Peter

Maxi,

Once in a while I make a new one from the ground up. Last time was a month or so ago (for a new W10 Build). But because it was some longer ago, I couldn't do it and found errors in my own notes. And then to think that *each* time I create a new one, those notes have to be adjusted, just because it is such a huge pile of things to do, and often you forget to wite down instructions. So that surfaces the next time ...
Eh, good luck ?
(but I still can hand you the expansion procedure)

Peter

Hi there Maxi,

The RAM-OS SSD as we sell it, is an SSD for one reason only : it boots faster with the larger OS which is pre-installed.

So the story is a bit different from your idea about it :
First people have 32GB of RAM, then it is convenient to have more space for the OS (on the HDD as how we ship it, this is IIRC 9GB), like 17GB or so (I forgot the number). Thus, the OS file which is loaded in RAM aned which ends up as Drive C:, has been made larger and together with that it was put on an SSD because this is read faster during the copying to memory. But on an HDD it would have worked just the same.

The other way around (your case) :
If you just put the OS, in its container of 9GB to an SSD, it remains 9GB. It will load again faster, but the HDD was fast enough. And so nothing really changed.

I guess what you want(ed to do) is make the space for the OS larger. Well, this can be done by means of expanding the OS file. If you need that, I can send the procedure to you by email. Or maybe not, because you made the whole thing yourself and already will know how to do that ? Anyway you can apply the exact same to the HDD and the SSD, as long as they contain sufficient space.

And now this has all been said : the SSD we ship is half smaller than the HDD (SSD is 240-250GB, HDD is 500-750GB).

Best regards,
Peter

People shouldn't miss this.