You tried to sing along, right ?

Assuming that you at least set Q2 itself to something other than 0, sure it can. Or at least that is what all was intended for. But right now explaining why more 3D would come from it ?

The point is, I tried to put in the experiences of the "unintended changes" (and afterwards knowing what could have caused it) into all of these 4 sliders, not knowing at all how they interact if it comes down to SQ changes. So, we have to learn this, and the more with some experience after a while, the more it will become clear what really does the trick. Btw, I put all the known influences in there except for one. This would require another slider, but since the implementation of *that* experience -meaning the remapping of it to some practical mimicing- is a very difficult one. Think in this case of why 0.9w emerged in the base : using the memory the way I always wanted it, kind of knowing that the standard way is not the best way. And, since this sure made a difference, mimicing this is in my thoughts of a next slider.

We must be careful; from some theoretical point of view we might be at some optimal stage already. If this would be true indeed, any additional slider useage (the existing ones) can only destroy. But of course I don't take it as a fact that we reached this optimal stage.

Leif, just because I want to check your 3D findings, what are the settings of the other sliders ?

Hi Kuo-Yao,

I must be honest : You mentioned a similar error (if not the same) last Saturday; When making the upgrade ready yesterday I thought of this, but I decided to let the upgrade go (instead of waiting another day) because of your other problem, without the solution for this. This seemed more important to me.
I will look into it of course.

Thank you for your patience (and you help on that other problem !).
Peter

Ah, now I see ! This happens at resizing the middle pane.

Here is a full new version now : XXHighEnd Model 0.9w-9b (solves Q parameter dislocation)

Sorry for the inconveniency.

This solves the bug on 0.9w-9 of the Q sliders in the QControl Area not being visible.

For the Releasenotes on 0.9w-9 see XXHighEnd Model 0.9w-9 (solves Attended bug + new Q Parameters)

Anyway ... I've made the sliders as large as they were before.
In original download a XXHighEnd-0.9-w9a.zip is obtained now for that.

Currently, the XXHighEnd-09-w9.zip in there contains the adjustment too (and shows as 0.9w-9a).

Edit : Above is not true anymore. See my next post below.

Huh ? would you care to show pics of this ?
Also show a picture of the volume slider please. This one is even smaller.

Thanks.

That is quick !
Thank you Leif.

PS: I think it can be true that for SQ (leaving the new Q parameters at 0) things can be back to some older version where things started to workout, say, worse for SQ. I mean, I obviously applied some things wrongly somewhere in 0.9w and these things have been reversed now. This certainly would apply to Attended Playback.

It took me a small year, but found some spare time to implement it today.

Maybe somebody can start some fund raising for this ?
The All Placebo Never Give It Up Fund might be a good name for it.

Btw, I'd swear I perceive a kind of aggressive sound from my Q2=8/Q3=24 setting. But that is way to soon for real judgement of course. Never too soon for a good Placebo though.

• If all is right the "No track given" (and more anomalies in this area) problem has been solved (this was an Attended Playback bug only).
  
  Note : One part of the "solution" was the removal of a back door solution which emerged a longer time ago against Engine3 running silent. It is not known whether this still can happen, but the backdoor solution of stopping and restarting XXEngine3 has been removed. This, because under the current conditions it might just abort a playing track (with sound). If now suddenly XXEngine3 runs slient where before it never did, please report. This can happen at Attended Playback only.
  
  
• Again some improvements have been applied to switching between Attended and Unattended and changing settings and wanting to continue playback at the point playback was at either side (Attended/Unattended).
  
  
• The Q1 slider has been moved to the QControl Area.
  
  
• Besides Q1 now a Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 exist. See Q Parameter Settings.
  It may even be advised not to use these new parameters because of the sheer unlimited combinations of settings, and it is not even known whether they really influence.
  
  
• The notch up/down volume buttons won't imply a restart of XXEngine3, which only happens at pressing Play after a volume change by means of the notch buttons.
  Note : It can't be determined whether this was already in 0.9w-8, but most probably not.
  

Edit : It has been reported that the sliders in the QControl Area are not visible and can not be manipulated.

Edit 2 : Removed the download zip below because of beforementioned bug. Please go to 0.9-w9b now.

I don't think I understand. But that maybe because I have changed things on this. But I don't know right now whether that was in 0.9w-8 or later.
Wait till 0.9w-9 and see if it's still the same. The intention (then) is : bring up XX, change vol, press Play (so no Stop needed). You can take as long as you want.
With Attended the wait time still applies.

You bet. Better leave this alone. I just started with it myself (honestly), and set Q2 to 8 and Q3 to 24. The others at 0.
Why ? one must begin somewhere. Hahaha

Here is an explanation -as far as possible- of the various Q parameter settings.

Q1 - Good old DAC influencer

Is there since August 13 2007.
Influences incoming jitter at the DAC and the analogue side of the DAC.
Generally a lower setting makes the sound more -as perceived- "accurate" while a too low setting may let music sound too thinny.
The outgoing data stays 100% the same as the source ("bit perfect"). Of course this is outside bit mangling stuff like upsampling.

Q2 - Is believed (!) to influence outgoing jitter.

Is, together with Q3, Q4 and Q5 there since Januari 25 2009 in 0.9w-9, and the main controlling phenomenon for Q3, Q4, Q5. Again all "bit perfect".
With Q2 at 0, nothing changes opposed to Q1 alone.

Q2 (and the others) emerged from pure theory and the experience of a few years people reporting about unintended SQ changes. Thus, from the experience and learning what happened at these unintended SQ changes, now an explicit parameter is there for influencing SQ in "that" area.

The higher the setting of Q2, the higher the influence will be, although certain settings may cancel out like the cancelling waves (opposed to standing waves). Similarly, a certain setting may add up exponentially (like standing waves).

When the Q3, Q4 and Q5 parameters are left at 0, Q2 still influences, though the most mildly.
Watch out though : Even with Q2 at 1 (the lowest zetting when active) this is exactly what could happen at an unexpected SQ change.

Q3 - Dictates the interval Q2 should to its job

Btw, the exact job of Q2 remains a ... .
This "interval" is not about some rational thing, but the higher the slider, the more Q2 becomes active.

Q4 - The strongness of the influence

The higher the number, the stronger the influence of Q2. So note that in combination with Q3, the stronger influence happens at smaller intervals.
Keep in mind : this is just influence, and nothing like increasing sound quality. Whether SQ increases or decreases depends largely on your computer system. Also, what aspect of SQ changes is also dependent on your system.
Note : The 0 setting still influences !

Q5 - Resonating the influence

Where Q2 acts upon request of Q3 with a strength of Q4, Q5 varies Q3. In other words : the way this is setup allows that the influence can "resonate" upon itself. You can see it so that Q3 is varied by the amount of Q5.
Careful : This red text does not indicate danger, but the importance of this Q5 parameter. Example :
When Q2 is set very low this means that the influence is low. However, think in higher level frequency here. The lower the amount of influence (and this works together with Q3) and the higher the force (which is Q4) the slower the resonance will occur, and the longer it will last. THIS MAY IMPLY AUDIBLE SQ CHANGES THROUGHOUT TIME (meaning each 5 or 10 (or who knows) seconds a change in SQ. Of course this is the most wrong thing to happen. Therefore generally you could say that the higher Q2 and the higher Q5 the more frequent the resonances will occur and the shorter they will last. The main factor here is Q2 itself, and e.g. a Q2 setting of 3 with an Q5 setting of 30 won't help much at avoiding "bad" resonances.
Also, a Q5 of 0 won't help, because the resonances are inherently there.
This too is just theory so far, and might you find an "uneven" SQ at certain intervals which you can't solve, the best solution would be not to use Q2 at all (nothing operates then) or set Q2 at 1 and work only with higher settings of Q3 plus Q4 to your likings.



Lastly : At the moment of writing this, not one single second listening to the results has happened. In other words, the working has been tested to be without errors (this can - and did happen without sound), so it is pure stupid theory as said above;
From here on "we" will start to learn whether theories may become practice. When nobody can perceive any difference (and watch out for the placebo pills !) theories are proved wrong, and at least this means of influencing will be removed out of XXHighEnd again. But :
This then just proves theories are wrong, knowing that unintended SQ changes happen, and it will be a matter of better analyzing what happened in between such unintended SQ changes. But that is for later. Maybe ...

Peter

[posted in both the topics "No Track Given Error" and "w-8 problem"]

Ok, there was more than one problem, and one of them was masking the other.
What tricked me, was that this one problem was about an error occurring at opening a file because it is in use, while the program (with official error trapping in it) did not report that error. So, something just died without notice. A stupid C++ bug in the end.

I will post an upgrade later today.

[posted in both the topics "No Track Given Error" and "w-8 problem"]

Ok, there was more than one problem, and one of them was masking the other.
What tricked me, was that this one problem was about an error occurring at opening a file because it is in use, while the program (with official error trapping in it) did not report that error. So, something just died without notice. A stupid C++ bug in the end.

I will post an upgrade later today.