Colin, you mean the one you see below, right ?

Do you have the same {...} number in your Tidal player ?
See the Share link.

> If I search Artist = madness , Album = blank , I get no results.

Many results here.

If I search Artist = madness , Album = complete madness , I get no results.

I get the album.

If I search Artist = blank , Album = complete madness , I get "unable to connect........"

I again get the album.

What happens when you paste this in the Album/General field ?
https://tidal.com/album/70742844
(that too works here)

Peter

... For the life of my I can't imply that error message, so I really like to have all the data to copy this issue ...

Btw, a nice pitfall will be that you have MQA Only ticked, and the Artist does not have any MQA. With Madness this is the case ... (at least over here).

Hi Colin,

This is difficult for troubleshooting because our result sets will be different (for Holland different from the UK). Anyway :

When I leave blank the Artist I just get a result (for all I look for but for safety I just tried Paranoid) and when I look for Artist Madness I receive a screen full.

What Album (in the "general" field) do you search for ?

Peter

Hi Colin,

In your XX folder there's a TidalSesssion.dat file. If you delete that, the popup for the credentials will show again.

Otherwise if you (want to) send me your Tidal email addres and password (by email !), I can try from here. I know of one other situation and in that case it works over here. And if I send you mentioned .dat file created here, it will work on your side too.
I have no idea what can be wrong in such a situation.

Best regards,
Peter

Guys,

The issue with the Volume not wanting to change, is "caused" by the Wallpaper Coverart set to not show. So when you'd change that setting, the Volume works.
I know, you have it off for a reason, so working on it !

Peter

Thank you Dennis, but I think there is no need for this. The process of concern wants to start but can't. That is, I tried myself (emulated in 14393.0 Desktop version) and couldn't and then found my own documentation that I gave up on this a few years ago already. Point is : the destkop versions don't need it so once shut off in the proper way it stays away (and can only be restarted in normal OS), but apparently your WS2016 requires it and indeed can't start it herself just the same. So, dead end.
For net result it now is not shut down so nothing nags.

For more net result the server version could be somewhat less good sounding, although I never tested it (I have it but never felt tempted to install it for real and try it). And maybe to keep in mind : a Server version won't be different after all the stripping-off XXHighEnd does with the Desktop versions.

So Dennis, what you could do with some more available time, later, is compare your WS2016 with normal 14393.0.
Also to remember : your WS2016 is not of the 14393.0 "base" but is of a hihger Build number (14393.0 is the one officially supported by XXHighEnd). But don't ask me where to get the Server version with Build 14393.0.
Btw, changes will be very very small 14393.0 suddenly will be OK on this matter, as the Group Polily features will be too much in the heart of a Server (version).

So let's say it is okay as it is and that I am glad we could get it running without me having it running myself. Thanks to you of course !

Best regards,
Peter

Well Dennis, it now appears that I can't do much about that Group Policy matter, other than let it be as it is now. But still a small attempt :

Can you try to explain when this message "Waiting for Group Policy" appears, and also how it disappears. Maybe in other words : could it be bearable if we bring the situation back to 2.07d (I think it was).
At this moment, and without looking, I'd say that this message can there be forever, unless you start playback again. And then still it can be "bearable". And for example, if you need to click it away, then I would not like this ...

?

Peter

Oh boy ...
Just a very short first response :

So it was very me who introduced DoP to "Miska" (of HQPlayer) and explained to him what to do with that. Mind you, nobody heard of that back at the time. It was regarded as a bit (haha) of fake, but, it worked. Btw, dCS invented it.

And now you are telling me that out of all, me myself never understood it well, and that in 2017, 6 years after DoP saw light, XXHighEnd can just use that.

Peter 

Ahum - That end of the afternoon became later than planned and in the end it never happened. I will do it today now !

Peter

Dennis, I most certainly can't !

Peter

Hi David,


If you are sure it was the second track and not just the first, then think (consider) of something in your PC not responding fast enough. But combine this with your experience of the lower SFS setting. So have you had this lower before then this shouldn't be the issue (so let me know what you used for lower for a longer period of time (like weeks)).

Also look at the length of this first track you played; was this considerably longer than average, you can have ran into the situation that too much in the PC fell asleep (not the whole PC of course). And now with the small SFS of 0.9, it does not wake up in time. This should not result in the noise, but by accidental combinations of matters, it could.

Best regards,
Peter

Joel, you can get the same message when Q1 x !qFactor is too much off. Default is 14x1, and more "extreme" for random situations is 7x1 or 21x1. Of course you can also set 30x20 or so, but this won't be a necessity in any case I know of.

Otherwise it is always waiting for whether the DAC accepts 24 bits or 32 bits (or both).
If you really can't find a working setting, it seems best that I look via TeamViewer. More options exist but it may take you too much time. Anyway the situation should be a more rare one ...

Peter

OK, I just had it myself. This was the sequence :

I played a 24/96 (actually an MQA but I regard this unimportant) which ended by itself because of the end of the album (this could be crucial).

I put on a next album of 16/44.1 and selected 4 tracks (I don't think this is important, but mentioning it just in case).

With my SFS of 0.9 I estimate that the 3rd buffer of that ended up in a burst of noise. But only during the length of that buffer (which should be 0.8 seconds or so (at 705600 samples per second). After that all went back to normal.
Side note : I recognize that it can happen during the length of one SFS buffer size only - for years by now. Also : the shorter/smaller the SFS, the shorter the noise lasts.

I stopped and restarted playback of the same selection, just because I was curious.
Nothing happened this time.
This latter proves to me that it should be related to what happened prior to the issue.

Peter

Hi Joel,

Possibly your sound card does not like the 44.1 base clock. To be sure about that, what happens with a 24/96 (or 24/192) file ?

Regards,
Peter