XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
May 08, 2024, 02:50:50 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!  
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 [933] 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 ... 1047
13981  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Incompatibility with Mozilla? on: October 05, 2008, 04:52:02 pm
Still strange.
Might you find out what actually causes it, please let me know !
13982  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Crack detect on: October 05, 2008, 04:51:19 pm
Hi Johan,

Quote
Is it logical to stop the music playback?

Yes, because the 60 "cracks" is high enough for the file to be suspicious. It can happen though (in reality -> 60 would be rather unaudible), although I have never encountered it. I take it that for you it is the first time ?
Please don't get the habit of switching off Crack Detect, and rather report to me when it happens too often. I can higher the number, until it gets dangerous (for your speakers and all).

Peter
13983  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Incompatibility with Mozilla? on: October 05, 2008, 05:44:40 am
Well, I would say this is sheer impossible, because the "install" isn't an install as such. It's nothing. Not if you start playing as well.
It must the means of unzipping or something. Some combination which makes things stall.
Please do it once again, give the PC a reboot, and see what happens then. Not as the solution, but to learn from. And then please let know what happened.

Peter
13984  Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / The Holy Grail of Audio Playback ? on: October 04, 2008, 03:06:04 pm
Hi guys,

It has been a very long time by now that I expressed something "wild", about my own "inventions" and strange stuff which actually can't be believed without scientific proof, but I think I found one again. Start laughing ...

As you know, quite a while back I created the digital volume in a way it should be. Ok, as how *I* think it should be.
Maybe not many got the real merits of it, which already starts with me actually never explaining what happened, and which I still don't.
Ok, never mind this, but what is kind of important to myself, is that me too could no really use it, because of too long interlinks, impedance problems, balance between those long interlinks and short LS cables and ... well, using the digital volume only, thus without preamp, in the end for me it just did not workout.

However, 10 days ago I got myself a line stage buffer (0 gain), and now things are different.
So, although the preamp is out of the way, there's still a device in there, but you could say it does nothing but creating the current to have the proper impedance towards the main amps. Ok.

All of the above is more or less UNrelated ...

teasing

At the first night I was very exhited. At the second night I was not and detached it again.
At the fourth night I gave it a try again, because I had to bring it back. I gave it one more go ...
It is still in there, and I have never in my life heard a so natural playback through loudspeakers.

Disclaimer : I have waited 5 days after subsequent playing to post this, and usually this is a bit too short of a time to be sure. So if I come back on it, don't shoot me. But I am just too enthusaist not to post now ...

Ok, I'll start at the end;

A guitar string has never been so tight. Bass strings have never been so full with individual vibes. Cymbals *did* have the color I am perceiving now, but this was in an earlier version of XX and was traded for - I don't know what anymore. Voices sound real as never before, and you can just feel this is better reality, although you never met the person in life. Emma Shapplin is singing like ... brrrrr

What happened, and what went wrong the second night ?
Most of us will have the experience of "balance". Balance to the sense of (possibly) the softer you play, the more things go wrong. Most often too few bass, and other things not fitting anymore. Now, one of the things the digital volume allows for, is pertaining that balance. Careful here, because a too low digital volume just creates distortion (certainly with 16 bit files and a 16 bit DAC), so the subject is difficult anyway.
This line stage buffer - or the effect it creates - shows a way *out* of balance when played softly. It just doesn't do the job at all, and far too much highs show then. BUT, again careful, because the digital volume may incur for it, and opposed to "without preamp and without buffer" it just could be so that actually distorted highs (because of too few bits) are rounded hence less harsh, whereas now, with the proper impedance, they are not and thus audible better than the lower frequencies. I just don't know (yet). However, I am fairly sure something very else is going on, looking at this (and this should be the strange "invention") :

Right at the (SPL) level the music is spit out at natural levels, things suddenly -and in one big bang- get so much realistic, a whole, natural, just right, that IMO something must be going on with the relation to the real level the instruments and all played during the recording, and the playback level *THAT* needs. Something like : when you play the violin softly it still produces the harmonics which consistently belong to that level of playing. But, when you play the instrument louder, the harmonics belonging to that level do not allow to squeeze down the volume ! In the latter case the harmonics to the louder playing stay, and you just make them softer, while in reality they just disappear, or change character.

What about that ! I think it just all fits. yes

Sidenote, and for your reference :
Normally I am using a TVC (passive preamp) of which I know now, after serious comparison, it will just *never* be able to reproduce music 1:1 when it is about the micro details. It will shovle out all the crispyness which actually is there, and it makes all bored. Not that I thought all sounded bored because of it, but relative to without, oh yes. An active preamp makes that even worse.
Now think of all "sharp" waves as spit out by the DAC, being so much more able to do their jon in air, and know that rounded waves where they should not be rounded, cannot do that job *AT ALL*. Possibly now you feel what can happen all together, and which happens in my room here now. So :

When the music plays at the correct level, suddenly (and you would be amazed what I mean with "suddenly") all the pieces of the puzzle fit.
Nothing of the kind happend with the TVC, and nothing of the kind happend without TVC and without buffer (impedance not right).
This just shocks, and shook me being the far most large improvement I ever heard. Extasy ...

There is a downside swoon ...
Do we all know what real levels are ? Did you ever have a drum set in your room ? I have, and I can tell you, this is not always funny.
But it *is* real ...

I measured, and a bit depending on the music, the SPL meter drifts between 92dB and 98dB. Have Emma Shapplin singing, and it goes to 104.
Does it hurt ? NO !!

This latter is -all together- one of the most strangest things to experience. At this way loud level highs are so fragile, they actually can't be. Still they are;
Very hard to explain, but all is so razor sharp that at first you will be blown off your socks. But strangely enough this "sharpness" is no harshness. It is just right, and reality when listening close.
Can you ever imagine that day before yesterday the music was playing at these levels for 4.5 hours ?? wife and child were there ...

As usual, things get extra-extra when playing music where synthesizers are involved. Hahaha, I don't think Emerson Lake & Palmer ever heard their own Pictures at an Exhibition like I did the other day.

Okay, another thing; Of course when playing loud the room gets more filled with music than playing softly. But here again, I feel some other thing is happening now : this filling of the room gets done in a way that it doesn't matter anymore where the sound is coming from.
What am I saying ?
The combination of the ever so important "no problems at all with standing waves" with this loud "sharp" level of playback, makes that it becomes rather impossible to focus on the source the music comes from (yep, the speakers). I know how to listen for reflections (just step into the middle of the speakers, and face the opposite of the room), and it is not that doing it. Instead, far more seems to happen in mid air;
Think of those now very "sharp" waves interacting far more in air with eachother, and where they collide they produce extra energy.
Focusing of instruments stays, but you are in the middle of them now. Or more in the middle. Walk through the room (12 x 8 x 3 meters here) and you'll meet them underway. Ehh, yes, 2 speakers here. Happy

Yesterday a.o. I played The Byrds. 1963 stuff. Oh yes, you can hear recording capabilities are not on par with todays', but man, I prefer that above anyhthing else (you probably know I already shouted about the beatles, and Christmast old stuff). Besides the music itself (did I hear any from them ?) it is one flow of interesting things happening in the room. Way way way more than Roger Waters and his Q-sound Amuzed to Death. And again, the in your imagination in advance more brittle sounding Byrds, were they ? NO !

Enough said. Back to work.
Peter
13985  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Cover art and playlists on: September 25, 2008, 01:32:54 pm
Ha ! Thanks for reporting this. Gerard had similar, and the way I solved it made me believe it wasn't solved. Also, back then I could not copy that behaviour. Now I can ...

Btw, it requires playing FLAC or MP3.

It is solved now, and will be contained in the upcoming version.
13986  Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: Check your Firewire connection ! on: September 24, 2008, 07:15:10 am
Yes, still using the (el cheapo) 1m. 400. Never tried the 800.
13987  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Remote control on: September 23, 2008, 09:58:11 pm
As a matter of fact, I feel the same. Really. Happy
13988  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New User Question - How to sort by track number with FLAC? on: September 23, 2008, 09:57:00 pm
Thank you Joerg. I will try my best to get the track numbers out of there, and make them useful for your purpose. It might not be in the next upcoming version, but if not, the one after that.

Peter
13989  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New User Question - How to sort by track number with FLAC? on: September 23, 2008, 09:49:12 am
Wait a minute ...

Joerg, although I have invested some hours in setting up something which solves your problem, which may take too much time all together for you to wait for (I would HATE the wrong order) ... I suddenly thought of this :

FLAC contains tag info per definition, and most probably the track number is in there. But, this depends on how you FLACed and when you did it. Assuming that the track number is in there, I can get it out ...

Are you able, somehow, to determine whether that "other player" indeed gets the track number out of the FLAC file ?
To give a definite answer on this, you can try this :

Rip a well known album with EAC (nothing else !) and just have the output in WAV. Don't spend time on quality settings in EAC, because they're not important now. But, cause the output tracks *not* to have track numbers, like you are used to.
Confirm in the output folder that the tracks are on alphabetical sequence (hence not the track number order, or it must be a coincidence).

Now, does this other player present you the correct sequence with these tracks ?
If so, it gets the data from the internet (which I spent a few hours on, so far).
If not, it is able to get the track data from the FLAC tags, which is not possible for standard WAV (like EAC creates them).

If you know the answer anyway, you can skip the above procedure of course.

Peter
13990  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 22, 2008, 09:06:09 am
Quote
-  make the appendage of (WAV), (FLAC), (MP3) in the library listing a 'tickable' option in the settings panel.

I'm afraid this is too much woven in the code while at the same time it has its purpose for that code ("is this a FLAC album ? then do such and so"). I think this will stay ...

Quote
- keep a history ( perhaps the last 10 entries ) , of the paths shown in the entry just to the right of the Date Picker button.

Now I see this working here (yes) it is actually quite convenient. You'll see ... Happy
Thanks for the idea !

Peter
13991  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 19, 2008, 07:02:40 pm
And a confession for your morning cup of tea : I am using the "Last Modified" Date/Time. *Not* the "File Creation" time. fool

The latter I will add for you now ...
13992  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 19, 2008, 06:13:13 pm
Oh, we just crossed posts. Sorry for taking your time !
13993  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 19, 2008, 06:00:19 pm
Quote
Btw Russ, if I see it correctly, you changed the name of that x-Reference file ?

Never mind. I saw it wrongly ! Happy
13994  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 19, 2008, 03:31:18 pm
Quote
Is this any more helpful?

Yes, I think I understand now what you want (and why you need it).
I was about to make a general sort routine anyway, and this is just another base for the sorting.

Btw Russ, if I see it correctly, you changed the name of that x-Reference file ? This will destroy the (upcoming) features around that ...


13995  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Library sort order on: September 19, 2008, 11:17:27 am
Hehe, we must have a misunderstanding, and I can't find where it is just now. But I will :

Quote
Yesterday ( 18th ), I copied over a chuck of new music to the HTPC and tried setting the Date Picker to the range 18th to 19th and nothing showed up.
I extended the range to 17th to 19th and a few showed up, and interestingly enough, not all the CD's from a particular boxset. I went back to the 16th - 19th and a few more showed up. Well, you get the idea.

I can only conclude from this that it isn't doing what I expected. I still think using the 'date created' attribute would work.

This works exactly how I expect it to do, including how I intended it to work. One thing : this is because the date creation **is** used. Keep in mind though, that this is about the date creation of the original. Thus, might you send such an album to me, even then the (your !) date creation is pertained. Mind you, the date creation as how XX digs it up, which just *is* the official date creation; hence, what Vista shows you, just is not, no matter you just "created that file on the network". You did not. You COPIED it (and of course, yes, you created it somewhere else, but this is not how it works following official rules -> look in the Windows folder ... there are no dates there *you* copied those files into that folder; these are original Bill Gate creation dates swoon).

So, out of all context (of your last post), and regarding above quote only, this happens because you started to rip that box set at the 16th (earlier in fact), and finished it at the 17th. So the date creation spreads over several days (and this by itself is caused by your slow ripping speed or the too large box set hahaha).

Can you tell me what is wrong with this idea of the (intended) working ? (and I mean, only to dig up the misunderstanding, and not (so far Wink) to be right on something !)
Pages: 1 ... 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 [933] 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 ... 1047
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.451 seconds with 12 queries.