In unattended after the gui disappears I get the following error:

Thoughts 

As Peter says over and over: Get a desktop. I finally did (inexpensive one from a big box store) and it's made a wonderful difference in the performance of XXHighend. All of my numerous glitches have, so far, disappeared. Sound quality is nearly the same, though desktop is somewhat better. All functions of XX work so fast and smooth its like a different program from what I ran two days ago.

Like mani said, adjusting the SFS (split file size) is a relatively quick fix. When you do play a trak at a volume up to where it sounds edgy at your current settings, then increase you SFS by twenty and see if it sounds a little mushy. If so turn up the volume a bit and see if that brings it into better 'focus". Repeat until edgyness goes away and mushyness is no longer!

Just a couple more cents......adjusting the split file size has, again, revolutionized my experience of the sound quality that XXHighend is capable of producing. After adjusting the split file size(hereafter called the SFS) to 165mb, I played Patty Griffin's, "Icicles" -from her Impossible Dream CD-for my wife. Her comment was either Patty was somewhere in the entertainment console or she, my wife, was having an LSD experience, something that hasn't happened in 30 years.  

The increase in SQ is really significant, though after spending a few more weeks with it I'm sure area's in need of improvement will emerge too.

I have started to keep track of where the SFS for particular vocalists on  particular cds sounds best,but I only find it necessary to adjust the SFS for that album, not for each track on it. For playlists with multiple vocalists I find a compromise size that works best for all the tracks in the playlist. Though a bit of a compromise it's waaaaaaay better than anything I was listening to ten days ago!  

Has anyone else found that significantly lowering the SFS at moderate and lower volumes helps SQ?

It seems that with Mani's latest discovery increasing the cpu clockrate allows for the converse regarding the SFS. It allows one to lower the SPF and get the same result. However one gets there it is a welcome result and it will be very interesting to see how Peter sorts all this "good stuff" out.

Did I say anything about a tone control recently........

All the testing I did with 16/44 files was also with 2x arc prediction. Here,playlists with various vocalists generally sounded best with the split file size set at 90mb. However, a particular artists voice on a particular album can be further "dialed in" based on the qualities of that artists voice. Lastly, at lower volumes, reducing the split file size generally sounds much better, particularly the bass. Is this not true for you Mani?

I agree that a new "Q knob" is not the answer because I don't think, given the location of Q knobs, all the different file formats, and  all the XX choices for playing those files, the split file size setting is something you set once and then forget about. Further, given these same considerations, I don't think it is likely (or even desirable given personal preferences) one can have XX automatically set the size per track. For convenience, I think a button for setting the split file size should be on the face of the gui down near the play button so one can quickly adjust it, much like a tone control on an integrated amp.

Just my 2 cents. 

Having an easily accessible control, on the face of the gui, would be best, IMHO. I've started making a list of where each vocalist sounds best. Would be nice to be able to make this adjustment quickly.

Also, there's a lot more to unearth with this. I think the effect is different for high def files, they seem to like the lower settings at higher volume levels, though I haven't tested enough to be sure.

As Paul Simon so eloquently sang, Still Crazy After All These Years, yeah!

Ever since Marcin posted the reducing the split file size to the minimum produced very good sound for him, I've been experimenting with it as well. With vocals, Leonard Cohen, Dylan, Patty Griffin, Eva, Dianna,  etc., the "correct" setting changes for each singer depending on the volume level. Take a singer and turn the volume to a moderate level. Here, on my system, setting the split file size to 12 does sound very good, but, turn the volume up to very loud and everything sounds way too detailed and etched, like a too sharpened digital photo. Keeping the sound very loud, turn the split file size up to between 80 and 200 (depending on the vocalist) and it sounds very pleasing again, though it looses some detail it sounds very realistic.

Its interesting that reducing the size at loud volumes initially sounds "best" but it soon becomes fatiguing. In a way, the split file size acts like a master tone control: reducing it makes all ranges, low, mid and high,  sharper and more revealing, thus for moderate volume it sounds "best"; increasing it, at very high volumes, rounds all ranges off and makes them feel more pleasing. Give it a try........and let me know if I've lost my mind......

Gotta live with compromises....I guess. After playing several files many times the "best" sound seems to come with different split-file sizes. Generally, female vocals and violins sound better with higher sizes, 120 to 200 (Patty Griffin doesn't sound bad at 4200, though 200 is preferred!). Bass guitar and piano like lower values, 12 (Oscar Peterson, Night Train,24/96) to 60 (Bass Face Trio plays Gerschwin, 16/44). The age and manner of recording might be part of the reason the Oscar Peterson sounds so good at 12.....don't really know.

Another generlization may be that at lower volumes 12 is probably the best size.

 

First impression of split file size of 12 v. 60: 12 is brighter everywhere but also sounds more thin, more like Engine 3, no kernel streaming. 60 sounds less thin with a fuller mid range. Again first, very quick impression--was leaving the house for work. Will try again this evening.

Two days ago XX started to run very slow. Also, I started getting "Too Many Buffer errors" between tracks on playlists I've been playing for a long while. The error usually involved a native wave file that gets decoded as hdcd, but not always. (Ripped with dbPoweramp not WMP  ) I reinstalled and all is well again. No buffer errors and lightening fast. Wish I could say what happened but I have no clue.......

Thanks Peter. I'll email Marco and see what he says. Really appreciate your time in looking at this.

For a minute I thought I might not be the only one......

Anyway, attached are some log files generated by playing 16/44 then 24/96. When the 24/96 started it played for about 20 seconds and then "Too Many Buffer Errors." Just thought I'd share.......

Hey Pedal, what kind of issues are you having?

Yesterday the following error occurred when XX went from a 16/44 file to a 24/96 file in the same playlist. (About half the time it works) I had to delete the config file to get things working again.

Thanks guys. Its unfortunate folks advertise stuff and speak half truths at best......