1276
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: NOS Ambient temperature
|
on: November 28, 2017, 06:20:04 pm
|
Hi again Jack, Maybe it's time for an upgrade, what are the options? Yes, I already thought about this somewhat, and it really would be a struggle for me to find out. In rare occasions people skip an upgrade, so they have two in one go. You skipped 10 or so. But then you are a rich man because of saving on shipping costs. I'm almost inclined to decline any upgrade request. It is the last of Mohicans ! Sometimes I am sorry to not have such a relic myself ! Otoh, we still have nightmares of seeing the Windows 7 little coloured balls twirl ... until they stopped. It was (Russian) roulette for each one we made. You have been a good father. Having said that ... I said it because I suddenly think of one other existing. In Serbia. It broke down on estimate 6 times in the first 6 months. Jack, if you are happy with it, then no reason to upgrade. But if you do, expect inordinate SQ improvement by now. 100% guarantee. Send me an email if you like to know more. OK ? Kind regards, Peter
|
|
|
1277
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Burst of noise
|
on: November 28, 2017, 06:01:37 pm
|
Arvind, Yes, this (see below).
Just not right for the period of 0.1 second (so that is theoretically 441 subsequent base samples which are wrong. It exactly this what the "Crack Detect" trips on.
It is not your rip. It is just in the master of this.
If you play this with the Custom filter, it will pass (I checked). No idea what you will hear for this small period of time. Theoretically this is a close to 22.05KHz tone without anything else (it is safer to think it is ~11KHz). But it also clips, so this really is not right.
Best regards, Peter
|
|
|
1279
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.09 sound quality
|
on: November 28, 2017, 02:24:28 pm
|
that's funny. You and me posted quite the same in the same minute independently. Hahaha, maybe it looks like that when you want to see that. But I see one "bit" more. 01 vs 11. I read your post after I had posted mine. That we, of course, believe. With such high buffers, the big changes of SQ happen with SFS between 8 and 14. And that seems to be key. Well found ! Thank you Stanley, thank you Richard. Regards, Peter
|
|
|
1282
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: XXOSK failure
|
on: November 28, 2017, 05:02:20 am
|
Since that moment XXOSK doesn't start up. I get the message of "Unhandled exception has occurred in your application. ....... Configuration system failed to initialize". I think, what I recognize of this, is the Operating System means of storing "form settings" and this has failed on you. Nothing I can do about it. What happens if you rename XXOSK.exe to e.g. XXOSK1.exe and start that one ? I think all could reset, but use that name from then on (nothing checks for that name and nothing starts the XXOSK from within XXHighEnd). Regards, Peter
|
|
|
1284
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.09 sound quality
|
on: November 27, 2017, 03:32:55 pm
|
The result: SFS = 12 sounds magic in my setup! Hey Richard - this is very much welcomed. Yesterday I had the plan to try something else today for the low SFS which I had at 0.7 the past days and which I switched back to 0.9 yesterday already. But still a sense of what you are talking about : a bit too thin. So in is your SFS = 12 and tonight we'll see what it brings. Thank you ! Peter
|
|
|
1286
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: MQA album playback skips second half of tracks
|
on: November 27, 2017, 09:44:03 am
|
Is there some way to keep the activation from previous machine? No, I'm sorry. This is a really nasty problem which can't be solved once it is occurring; it is the combination of a Microsoft problem which can emerge once the OS is upgraded at some stage plus the "code base" as used by MQA which does not allow an "easier version". I had a hard time finding a PC which does not work myself, eventually found one (W8.1) and with all the patches and MS updates of the world, I could not get it going. But in the end there is something else ... Look at the message (from Arjan) you refer to. I tink that was my intention to happen (never mind, it's only a logo). But it seems that this got its own life and now decoding won't happen on a PC which actually can do it (Arjan's example). This is a bit daft ... and already put in my todo. But don't hold your breath for it, OK ? Peter
|
|
|
1287
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New XXHE Install: Specified module could not be found
|
on: November 27, 2017, 05:14:08 am
|
I will go ahead with activation, and I should be set. Hi Ramesh. That is what I meant with my "do you really care ?". After that (Activation) we can try to find out whether the low level is normal or not, for that laptop. But by now I could point you to the system volume which maybe could attenuate the sound. I don't think it can, but ... (a lot of things might have changed since this was all developed). Good luck now and thanks for holding on ! Peter
|
|
|
1290
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: MQA album playback skips second half of tracks
|
on: November 26, 2017, 05:24:53 pm
|
Hi Arjan,
I think this is a combination of having all fine on the Audio PC, but not having the MQA decoder working on the "Tidal" PC. The Coldplay works (but doesn't) because it is 44.1. The MQA decoder works when you see the sampling rate next to the MQA icon. See below for the (right hand) Cold Play one. Also, for an e.g. 96 the input sampling rate must be 96, not 48 as your screenshot shows. Of course you can only see what it should be once you have that icon on it.
For next attempts, throw first all what's MQA out again. So you need to re-Prepare. In the Library Area you will see the sampling rate icons already from the Search Result.
It requires 2.09 on that Tidal PC. Can that be the culprit ?
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|