Well, I've only been able to play with 16/44 files so far, so I didn't want to mess with digital volume yet. But in comparison to previous, it feels like the phase is different. Specifically, 0.9u feels more "in" phase.

FWIW, I'm currently starting with Q1=14, and invert checked.

I have similar messages as well. I'm trying to play a 24/96 WAV file. And I get:

-UNSUPPORTED FORMAT
-2/24/96000/264600/6
-Device (currently) does not support/allow Exclusive Use. It will not be bit perfect!
-INVALIDARG
-2/24/96000/264600/6
-Device cannot be allocated

My settings are DAC is 24bits 96KHz
and I tried both DAC needs 24 and 32.

I also tried playing a 16/44 file and checking upsample, but this does not work either. Peter, your post was unclear to me if upsampling 16/44 to 24/96 is supported or only playing 24/96 files. Also, FWIW, when I check upsample, then double automatically gets checked as well and I can't uncheck it or it unchecks both.

No it does not work in 64bit Vista.

Here's the original discussion regarding 64bit Vista:

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=134.0

 

You are correct, Dave, Microsoft did "buy" HDCD.


Well, not necessarily. What Microsoft did when they bought the technology was incorporate the decoding into Windows Media Player. As long as you set WMP to output 24 bit and your soundcard can accept 24 bit, then HDCD is decoded by the software and the "special chip" ( Pacific Microsonics PMD200) is not necessary. I have a handful of HDCDs and I can play them through WMP to my USB DAC and the HDCD light comes on on WMP and it decodes properly. It sounds pretty good too. (This, of course, does not work if you are using S/PDIF out)

So this is somewhat good news for Peter - in that it is possible to incorporate the decoding into XXHighEnd. However, Microsoft is not going to license this to Peter, so I don't know if there is a way around it.

On the hardware side of things, here is a blurb from a Stereophile blog regarding Reference Recordings HDCD releases and the new Alpha DAC:

...Reference Recordings therefore stuck with HDCD. Unfortunately, after Microsoft bought the rights to HDCD from Pacific Microsonics a few years back, it dropped development and support for the format. Fortunately, two of Johnson's dear friends and associates from those days, Michael Ritter and Pflash Pflaumer (who co-invented HDCD with Johnson), have since launched Berkeley Audio Design Associates, and have developed an Alpha DAC that Martin claims sounds better in some ways than Pacific Microsonics' no-longer-produced Model 2 HDCD encoder.

The Alpha DAC, which does not infringe on the HDCD patents that Microsoft now owns, will debut at CES (2008)...

Thank you, Telstar, for your open discussion (and the benefit of the doubt). You've made some valid points.


The Kingston I'm using is KVR400D2N3/2G. The SPD rating is PC2-3200 (DDR2400) 3-3-3-8. The Corsair (CM2X1024-6400C4), on the other hand, is rated at as PC2-6400 (DDR2 800) 4-4-4-12. My testing was done comparing both at DDR2 400 3-3-3-8, with voltage at 1.8 (So, yes, I manually changed the settings in the BIOS for the Corsair). I wouldn't think under-clocking the Corsair would make it "less stable" and hence the sound difference, but who knows. And, yes, ALL other conditions were identical. As far as the motherboards, I tried each of them on the ASUS board (Intel 975X chipset) and the Biostar board (VIA chipset), and in both scenarios the Kingston sounded better. Here's a conversation I had with "cics" about chipset power consumption:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/27186.html
And, no, I do not know what chips are used on my Kingston. I shudder to think of how they all sound different. I really wanted to use only 1 stick and I wanted 2GB because I'm using a RAMDisk, and that would allow me to load 2 CDs into the RAMDisk at a time. I also wanted to run the RAM at 200MHz (DDR2 400) to match the CPU, with the lowest latency, so this Kingston model was the only one I found matching those specs.


Yes, of course.


I don't think it is so much the USB protocol that is the problem as it is the inferior USB to SPDIF converter chip inside the DAC that is usually the problem. USB in itself contains no clock so I'm not sure what you mean about jitter caused by the usb bus. Perhaps it is intrinsic jitter?


The M-Audio I have is not bus-powered. It has a separate PS.


Well, first of all, he is not charging any money for his information - it is open source, and I don't think he is outright saying everyone should build a computer his way. He is just trying to help. And he is very smart. And he has spent A LOT of time testing this and that. So he just wants to give people a turnkey solution benefiting from his R&D without having to do all the testing themselves. He has also been open to mine and others suggestions and does not insist it has to be his way. For people like you and I, who can do all these tests ourselves and like to "tweak", then this is just a starting block. And in reality, he is just trying to achieve with foobar what we are achieving with XXHighEnd. And I bet you, things like suspending processes while the music playing, would be "easy" for Peter to implement in XXHighEnd. 

Well, Telstar, your criticisms are invalid then. Just because you cannot believe something you "read" does not give you the right to criticize. If, however, you have tried specific examples of "tweaks" and have conclusions to the contrary, then that is a conversation I will have with you. But please do not comment on things you haven't tried. And BTW, you are not the only one who has built computers for many years.

-I did in fact compare my Corsair RAM to my Kingston RAM, both with the same manual latency settings and also comparing with each using the settings from their SPD. In all cases the Kingston sounded better and the difference was not subtle. I even performed blind testing with my wife, and she defintely heard a difference as well. I'm sorry you don't "believe" it.
-I am in fact using a USB DAC (see my sig), and I feel that because it is such an entry-level product and probably very sensitive to jitter, that is the reason I hear a difference with every little "tweak" whereas most may find the "tweak" on their setup (with a "higher-end" DAC) to be too subtle.

BTW, I do use a UPS. And FWIW, here is the information for the Granite Digital PS I'm using (item #7130):
http://www.granitedigital.com/index.asp?PageAction=PRODSEARCH&txtSearch=7130&Page=1

And please, Telstar, I will apologize now if this sounds like I'm putting you down - I do not intend to. I want to have an open discussion with you. When you have tried the same hardware things that I have, then I would love to discuss whether or not we hear the same things. I am in no way trying to imply that I'm the expert who has found the perfect solution. This is a learning process for me as well and I am completely open to all suggestions. But one thing I've already learned definitively is that no matter how much you believe that things shouldn't theoretically make a difference - when you talk about SQ on a PC, EVERYTHING makes a difference.

And the bottom line is, if you cannot hear a difference and you feel only certain things are "enough" for you, then that's perfectly acceptable if you are content. But that does not mean that someone else won't hear a difference also (with their ears and their setup).

Hey guys, please don't put "cics" down. I have emailed with him many times and he is actually a really good guy. We collaborated on a few ideas when he was putting together his "Art of Building a Computer Transport" manual and it is definitely not ridiculous or silly. The hardware settings most definitely influence SQ. Please do not make fun of it, especially if you have not tried it. I used that "manual" as a guideline when I recently built a new computer, and the difference between my old computer and this one was night and day. (And that includes using the same software, settings, and DAC) The improvements really come in the form of much "cleaner" power supply. For those that are interested, these are the specs of the two computers:

NEW ONE:
Zalman TNN-300 (Case with fanless CPU heatsink and fanless PSU)
Biostar P4M900-M7 SE (Low power motherboard)
No video card! (VGA on motherboard)
Intel E2160 (Low power dual-core CPU; 1.8GHz; 800MHz FSB)
Kingston 1 stick of 2GB (Low power PC2 3200 DDR2 400 RAM)
(Both CPU and RAM run at 200MHz frequency - 1:1 ratio is very important for good SQ and using only 1 stick is also important for low power consumption)
Seagate Momentus 5400.3 80GB laptop HDD (low power, low vibration)
(HDD is powered externally with Granite Digital external PS - leaving only the CPU & Motherboard power connectors being used by the Zalman PSU)

OLD ONE:
Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Intel E6600 (Core2Duo 2.4GHz)
Zalman CNPS9700 LED CPU fan
nVidia 8600 GT
Corsair XMS2 (PC2 6400 DDR2800)
Seagate 80GB Desktop HDD
Seasonic S12 550 PSU

As I said, I used the same software settings (with XXHighEnd) and on both I aggressively disabled many processes/services and other little tweaks and used the same DAC. So in comparing, the only difference was the hardware. Trust me, it was not subtle. What a great improvement in SQ.

Anyway, as for the cMP (memory player), I did try it and indeed it does not work with XXHighEnd. "cics" is dead set on using XP and foobar 0.9.5 and this is where we have a difference of opinion. But that does not make it any less of an innovation. Indeed he never tested it with Vista nor XXHighEnd and I told him I don't think it will be very effective with XXHighEnd (because XXHighEnd already effectively does most of what he is trying to accomplish). The one thing he accomplishes with the "memory player" that I like (and which is most controversial and I'm sure to hear about it from you guys) is something I experimented with: After I begin a playlist with XXHighEnd (unattended), with Process Explorer open, I suspend all the svchost and lsass and explorer. This renders your PC virtually dead, with only the music playing. What a nice improvement in SQ! When my playlist is done playing, I can resume all those services and return to normal. Mind you, this is a truly dedicated audio only PC and I do not do anything else with it, so if it's dead while I listen to music, I don't care.

That's interesting. Have you tried different firewire cables to see if they sound different? (As I have found out with different USB cables on my USB DAC) I have currently settled on Kimber Kable's USB cable.

Really? I thought you are using the Fireface 800. (See attached photo) Isn't this what the back looks like. That's a wall wart power plug on the left. It's not bus-powered. Is it possibly both?

Thanks Andrey, I did not miss the point. I was trying to point out that up until now, MOST people have considered that USB power is "dirty", and I do indeed understand that you are illustrating the opposite. (Just playing "devil's advocate" as usual)

As for the M-Audio, perhaps you missed the point I made that I can't power it from the PC PSU even if I tried. And there are many devices like this. Which is why a direct comparison is difficult.

Peter, I don't agree with your description of the signal path. It implies that your are using the SPDIF from the motherboard to go into the Fireface. I'm pretty sure that's not what you are doing. And also USB DACs do not connect directly with the DAC chip. The USB connection goes into a receiver chip and then to a converter chip. AFAIK, there are only 2 outputs to convert to. Either SPDIF or I2S. Then that goes to the DAC. So here's how I would label the signal paths:

PC->Firewire->Fireface->SPDIF->DAC
and PC->USB->SPDIF->DAC
or PC->USB->I2S->DAC

So, all things being equal, a USB DAC that converts to SPDIF internally should sound the same whether it is connected by SPDIF or USB. The USB connection eliminates the need for an SPDIF cable, however, as you can guess, all USB cables do NOT sound the same either. And, of course, not all USB receiver chips are created equal, so . . . this explains why they DO sound different. And then there are those that do not like the USB->SPDIF converters so they prefer to convert to I2S (internally).

As for USB bus power. I believe it's difficult to compare, because a device that is truly NOT bus-powered, can ONLY be connected to it's wallwart (or battery), such as my M-Audio. The capability of bus-powering is removed from the connector pins, so I couldn't even bus-power my device if I wanted to. If, however, you have a device that CAN be bus-powered, even if you plug it into the wall (or battery) you still have the circuitry there for bus-power and still have potential for "dirtying" up the USB signal by drawing current over the USB cable (which is why most prefer to not have bus-power).

I just happened to be reading about a couple of DACs that may be exactly what Peter is talking about. From Audial (Pedja Rogic), he offers "The Model" and "Aya II".
http://www.audialonline.com/model/tech.php

Has anyone heard anything about these?

I'm very interested in the answer to this question as well.

I've not heard this DAC yet, but I've been reading about it. And I've read that the only way to achieve bit-perfect in Vista (using shared mode) with 16 bit music is to set the default mode to 24bit and then for the media player to output 16 bit padded data to 24 bits.

So perhaps the only way to lock on to exclusive mode is to send 24 bit data.

Peter, is there any chance of getting a version to us soon that will allow us to play 24 bit files (or at least pad the 16 bit files)? 

How the hell did WE end up with wives like this?! My wife hasn't bought a new CD in over 10 years. She just listens to whatever I buy for her, or whatever I'm listening to. There's only one band she refuses to listen to  - and that's Skinny Puppy. But that's OK. When I listen to Skinny Puppy I like to be alone.

As far as listening tests - she'll concede once in awhile, very reluctantly, and then just proclaim she can't hear a difference. But I need her ears! She has much better hearing than I do in the high frequencies.

OK . . . if we look at a CD from the side (like a cross section) you would see the grooves (which might remind you of vinyl) which are the pits and lands and the shape would be raised rectangles. When a CD is read, it's not as simple as a pit=1 and land=0. In actuality it is all about the transitions. So a transition from land-to-pit or pit-to-land represents a binary "1" and all other surfaces (land or pit bottom) represent binary "0". If you read the CD as data (or rip a music CD) all that matters is that you can read the transitions. You may have a very poorly formed pit, but as long as the laser can tell it is a pit, then it is captured bit-perfect. If it can't tell if it is a pit or land then the CIRC error correction is engaged and if it doesn't work, then that is when you will get wrong data (a "0" instead of a "1"). Now, when a CD is streamed as music (as in a conventional CD player) then not only does it have to capture the 1s and 0s, it also has to apply a clock to it. And this all happens in real time. It's First In First Out and the speed of the spinning CD and the laser capturing the bits have to be precise. The speed (or clock) is fixed and based on the specification of exactly how long pits and lands are supposed to be. So let's use the example of the poorly formed pit that looks more like a triangle than a rectangle. The laser will recognize it as a pit, so there won't be any error correction needed, but the transition between that pit and the next land will occur at the wrong time (because the pit is the wrong length), thus creating jitter. Peter, you were correct in saying "Indeed, culprits in there only unveil at playback..."

So this is why many generations of burns/rips will continue to be bit-perfect identical to the original. There is no clock applied when ripping and it doesn't care how long the pits and lands are. So "jitter" does not exist in the music (or WAV files) itself, per se.