KUOYAO,

45 minutes ago I sat down to solve this bugger, while yesterday I used the log and could not find in there what went wrong. And wrong it went all over.
But not today !!

I really don't know what settings I could have changed. Do you perhaps have a clue ?

And *is* anyone else suffering from this problem ? (you don't need to explicitly test this for me, but it could be that tou ran into it -> Attended only).

But ...
I am beginning to think this is a compiler error or something of the kind;
Yesterday I built in some debug commands, and in the end removed them all. The .exe is exactly as long as the January 12 version, but the files are not equal ...

Could you (or anyone who had the problem) try below XXEngine3.exe please ? Just unzip it into your current XX folder.
I'd put some money on it has been solved ...

Thanks,
Peter

Edit : Removed the zip which did not help.

Almost completely true Leif. Any audio application (DAC wise) which uses another protocol than intended by mr M$ won't run on Vista WASAPI. Ask Steve N. from Empirical. Or the users here who can't use Engine#3.

Your turn.
Peter

With 0.9w-6 this certainly happened. Solved in 0.9w-7.

About the other thing, let me know when you have it again, with or without sequence that you know of.
I know you can create "anomalies" by clicking on another track while playing. You can see it : let a track run for a minute or so, and then just click on another track which is much longer or shorter. The time scale changes because of that, and is not related to the currently running track anymore. Some "feature" which was introduced in one of the later versions. Is in there to explicitly solve some other problem, and conflicts with just clicking a track.

Just bumped into this again.
For those who don't know : It's in 0.9w-7.

Ok. Might you not have read it in between the lines in the DAC topic, here is my kind of special angle :

With the Phasure NOS1 I had in mind to provide it with an internal Firewire connection. Not especially because I wanted Firewire as such, but because from there I could use I2S as the better connection than SPDIF. Note that this is a 24/192 DAC, so I couldn't use USB (which is limited to 16/96).
Btw, I came up with the idea now several months ago, right in the "Buffalo" thread (at DIYA); you might have noticed it.

All these several months I have spent as much time on it as response times from suppliers/manufacturers allowed, and it was only last weekend I gave up on it definitly, since I found another I2S route. So :

First of all I found two manufacturers only, providing a Firewire chip. There may be more, but Google doesn't know them then.
Along with that, I found two suppliers; 1 per manufacturer.

Story from supplier 1 :
Yes we have a development board. Yes it is especially made for users for small amounts. Yes you can buy it. 370 euros.
And I did. I came full of dust, and at talking with the supplier over the phone lateron, indeed it had been laying there for 3 years.
It came with no drivers, which after a few rounds of emails came afterall, but did not work. After again a few emails I learned that the board was end of life. Then I grabbed the phone, which brought the news that a newer chip was available, but no development board was planned for it. Oh, there was at 1200 euro, but it didn't suit any of my needs. And keep in mind : a development board is for developing a PCB and all, which of course is stupid in my case. Even for 100 DACs it would be.
After the promise for a working driver, it took two other weeks before I received it (this was after 5 weeks of total throughput time), and the only thing that driver could do was crash software that normally produces sound. The use of it wasn't there anywhere, because I can't get more boards if needed.
The supplier offered to return it (but I still have it).

Story from suppplier :
Thank you for calling. Yes we can do that, but we changed our product names, and now this is such and so. Have to rush now. Tomorrow I will answer your questions.
No answers anymore.
In the mean time I found more about there products, and could ask better questions. One was : hey, with your old product names 192KHz was available, not anymore now ?
After this new email with questions there was a first answer : no, we must change the drivers first. Ah, oh, so I am the first one needing 192KHz, right ? Well, I sure won't pay for this, and let everybody use it. ->  yea, well, no, channels, bandwidth blahblah. But I have to leave now for a week, and will give you a quotation after that.
No quotation seen.
Last week I asked politely what happened, but I guess the poor man will be at CES forever, or whatever it is that does't make him sell anything.
Never heard anything back, and this lasted from December 12. Mind you, this company had a perfect small board ready for use by anyone with some soldering capacities. But my guess is that it was air only.

Right. It looks like something is very wrong in Firewire land. Suppliers from real life boards cannot deliver. Further suppliers are just not known. The phone conversations with Supplier1 told me that. There *are* more suppliers, but they deliver for Weiss et all, and the only thing which could be done is that Supplier1 would buy back from guys like Weiss. Or I had to do it myself.
Hey there Daniel, I'm building a DAC myself, and since you're the only one with a kind of consumer DAC carrying Firewire, I suppose I can get a few Firewire interfaces from you ?
Yeah, right.

It looks like this market is dominated by some long known manufacturers, and there is just no openness to new ones. I never suggested I wanted to build a single DAC for myself, and merely asked for 100+ quotations. Nothing leads me to actual manufacturers for help, except for Google. And of course that doesn't help much, because 1 million comes first then.

At least now we know why no consumer DACs with Firewire exist (and personally I don't call any Weiss product a consumer product -> all Pro). It just can't be done at lower volumes.

Because all is so closed, it is my guess that the Firewire companies know by a long time that Firewire times are over. There is a huge existing Pro market, but no real new products emerge there (Weiss possibly being one of the latest). Not at the real levels of 24/192 (96 is another matter).
Chips are sufficiently available, and reproduced when necessary;
When new markets emerge like PC audio needing Firewire (careful here, and I might have been the very first exploring the Fireface800 for such a reason back in 2005), this is too late. There is no anticipation on these kind of initiatives.
Isn't it stupid : PC's are full of Firewire TRANSMITTERS, but no boards exists to be a RECEIVER. Yea, that one Supplier2 board guy, who doesn't want to sell.


Ok, this was just a real life story.
Peter

Huh ? no ... This is what I wrote about it : (from The Verdict ...)


So, really the opposite. The Buffalo didn't add noise as such, while the NOS1 did (and which was caused because not being in a cabinet). In either case the added noise by itself is not the real problem (the noise being at -95dB) but it adds up to that stupid tone.

Btw for your information : the Buffalo -with it's standard PSU- exposes a "radio noise" which wanders through the spectrum. Probably inaudible through less sensitive speakers, but very visible through a spectrum analyser. I hope you know what I mean with radio noise.

Ah, the old lover is a bit confused !

It looks like you haven't read the whole topic here;
Although the Buffalo was mentioned here and there, and although I indeed built one (as Leif did) this topic is about my own assmbled DAC, worldwide commonly known as "Phasure NOS1". Okay, in a year that is, I hope.

The Buffalo (AKA ESS Sabre) can't work filterless, as this is a heavily oversampling 1 bit Delta Sigma whatever DAC.
I would not call that sweet, but very good instead. Very good if you don't like NOS or just didn't experience NOS. Although I really cannot tell, with a decent PSU it is most probably better than your Eximus. However, if I had to listen to it as "my DAC", I'd go to bed early. Like an old lover acting young. Well, it's all been said in an earlier post in this topic.

The NOS1 indeed is assembled as NOS and filterless. But it can run in several combined modes.
To avoid confusion : what I was talking about in the earlier large post, was OS mode, tweaked to NOS behaviour running 16/44.1 at 176400 and without filter, connected via native I2S.

For your interest on "modern DAC chips", this runs on 4 PCM1704UK chips (2 x 2 balanced mode).
Peter

Haha, I don't know whether you meant to say that the Buffalo is NOS ? but if you did ... it is far from it !


Well old lover, this should be in there since 09u-12 (April 4 2008).
Did you miss it all this long time, or don't I understand what you want here (like playing a tape maby ? )

Hi all,

Below picture I posted before in the "DAC" topic some weeks ago, but in the mean time it is following me to my death and is quite intrigueing at the same time. I don't have the hope that anyone knows the answers, but maybe you know someone who is highly skilled on these matters, and does.

What you see below is the distortion on the mains from a 3 phase (380V) pump and its frequency converter. This is pulse width modulation, and the revs of the pump can be more or less by means of changing the pulse width as taken from the original sine on the mains. This means squares are left, and those are fed to the pump's motor.
What the picture will show is the feedback on the mains of that square impeeded process.

So far I could find nothing to remove this from the audio system (the picture is a measurement by microphone 1 m from the speaker), and separate mains groups don't solve it either.
There is already a kind of promise from me to you that "you" will have similar. Not on the same frequencies, but you will. It is my guess that every switching PSU will show this, one more than the other though. And, it depends on whether those spikes are above the noise level. In my case it is, and a freezer does the same (at two other frequencies) though with lower amplitute.

So, do I ask you to solve this ? well, not really (it will be solved by power regeneration I'm sure). But what I want to understand is this :

Each device which is added to the mains or indirectly connected to the audio system, will let rise the amplitude.
What this comes down to, is that plain white noise added will let rise the amplitude.

The frequency will stay exactly the same always. Note that this is a very steady tone, and it will be a square wave by itself (look at the side lobes).

If you didn't grab the strangeness of this, maybe these examples start to make you wonder :

To eliminate all unnecessary disturbances I removed the microphone from in my case the Fireface800 which is the capturing device but kept reading the input. So, while before I was captuting the sound through air, now it is just from the electronics. Air molucule noise is avoided now, and only the electronics' noise is left. Here too the beautiful tone is visible. Now :

When I connect an interlink anywhere in the audio system, the amplitude rises. Say, with 3dB. When I connect just a connector to that interlink, the amplitude rises again. 1 dB or so. When I connect a poor connector (like a cheap Y), the amplitude rises again. Can be 5dB.
When I connect the NOS1 DAC without cabinet (this is how the whole subject started) the amplitude rises. 20dB. Yep. And the DAC wasn't even connected to the mains.

Still here ?

I proved that the gerenal noise level did not rise with the same amount as that one tone (with all its side lobes). For example, the 20dB the tone rises means only 3dB for the general noise level. Also, you can well say that adding the connector incurring for 1dB rise of the tone, would be unnoticed at the general noise level (unless that could be expressed in a "totalled" number of course).

So, I think I found the most perfect means of measuring your cables and connectors. Send them all to me, and I will test them for relative noise. Hahaha.

No ... I think what I proved is that something is happening standing wave like, but now in the electrons in the cabling. Well, somewhere.
If you'd ever seen how aliasing may create similar in the audio spectrum ... I mean where two aliases coincidentally meet, their amplitudes are just added up, and show as mathematically added. Here a kind of happens the same it seems. But I can't reason out how or why.

The pump's square feedback on the mains looks like a fact;
There is no way I can think of that adding connectors and cables and devices will have some kind of additional noise disturbance at 17.5KHz. No way.
But what * *can* think of, is that somehow white random noise interacts with a square which is there to begin with. This, then, should only be so when the white noise are more or less squares by itself. And, they may, thinking of all various small spikes -by themselve already squary or not- adding up adjacently to more real suqares, and the area of the tone just nicely adds up for the amplitude. I say "nicely" because that really is so. Again, no way that the frequency of the tone changes or gets unstable (which would mean the frequency where it happens starts to change more or less). If enough noise is added, the whole screen is occupied by this monster, and from left to right it is all over with side lobes of the suqare's harmonics.

To be clear on things : after 2 weeks or so the NOS1 DAC laying around without cabinet I got crazy of something. I heard a high pitched tone, and mainly when I was in bed. I think this happens when you are under the influence of such a thing (which was dancing at -55dB at that time) while you actually can't hear it (if I hear 12K I'd be happy). I only want to say : first I heard something, and then I started looking for it my means of a microphone. So it is really there, and not only in the equipment.

Any contestants having answers ?

Peter

All,

Since Januari 6 (which is a whole long week already) I have this still unopened box with 10K worth of audio measuring equipment;
It has been a dream for me to have such equipment, which will allow me to see what actually happens within XX at certain settings. Also, it will allow me to find theoretical best settings, or even other influencing means. So, be ready for that.

I post this in advance to ensure myself doing it in the next coming days or weeks, and to at last prove that what we hear is no placebo.
Right now I don't know what I will find or where to find it. Part of it should be in the digital domain hence jitter, part of it will be in the analogue domain only (right behind the DAC).

The reason to at last buy this equipment originates from the Phasure NOS1 DAC which should be top of the bill, and which should go along with some real THD etc. data. But of course first there will be the process of improving by means of measuring and applying changes.

Whether it be XX or the DAC, you can bet that I will be measuring different things opposed to what is commonly done and accepted;
The fun is, that by now truckloads of experience tell me/us what influences how, and what we like and do not like. For example, I could grab an old XX version of which is appreciated it doesn't sound good, and compare with another of which is known it sounds good. From that possibly the properties can be derived which make what happen.

But now comes the combination ...

What is currently done via software so preciously and which is very fragile and far from absolute science, most propably and hopefully can be mimiced by hardware. If all is just about less jitter, we're done very fast. But I don't think it is and otther influences may play a larger role than we expect. This is why I will be measuring quite different things than commonly done.
If all works out as I expect, think of a Q1 button on the DAC that changes sound ...

So far for now.
Peter

Hahaha, not quite ...
Three rather important things "happened" :

1.
Yesterday I thought "well, if the thing wants I2S only at high sample rate mode (which is what it comes down to), I'll give it that".
And thus, from within XXHighEnd I could use the Quattro mode (for 44.1 files).

2.
While initially the above had been in my mind the whole day yesterday, and I was wondering whether upsampling from the software would workout better than the upsampling by the SRC chip, at attemping this means of playback it sprung to my mind that I ever developed "just Quattro" mode, meaning a higher sample rate only, and no upsampling. Hahaha, that would do the trick !
Note : this means that all the squares from the earlier scope picture just would stay like that, and each sample is just fed 4 times without adjustment (this was back then made for better jitter rejection).

3.
Playing for 1 minute with immediate good result (at 176400) a next thing sprung to my mind, not thinking it would work, but hoping for it ...
The means of source I use for the I2S connection is quite different from usual (no Fireface in between), and I notched down the buffer of that means. Note : for 176400 via the Fireface a sample buffer of 128 had to be used (96 or less would not work), which btw is 128 + 64 in real life (the 64 is always there, and is called a Safety Buffer). Now ... I notched down and down and ended up at 48.
Hahaha, so with I2S I now can use the 48 sample buffer for all resolutions ! This is very important because the size of that buffer changes SQ (for SPDIF it does anyway), so the apples and organges thing is out of my life forever ! Only now lowres files can really be compared to hires files !

How does it sound ? (said the reviewer )

Well, first of all the bird is fully alive now !! But wow, what a different sound once again !
I must again emphasize on "sweet"; Sweetness is what can be heard all over, but the combination with other phenomena is strange :

Now the crispyness is still there. Ok, hard to explain, but as it appears now the sweetness I heard from I2S at OS mode indeed is a property by itself (as I expected). Thus, while OS mode removes the cryspiness and the lively sound, this is back now, but the sweet touch of everything smelling like Sses is still there. Cymbals did not loose there metal (which added "sweetness" would incur for), and all squariness from the NOS DAC is nicely there.

Before I continue I want to make clear somehow how huuuge the difference is with SPDIF. In fact this is just two complete different DACs now. The both connections cannot be compared. Just not. Additionally I must say that I never read about such an enormeous difference between SPDIF and I2S, although everybody does hear "the" difference. This is just not normal, and I am not sure what to think of this. However, theoretically there is this difference :

In OS mode the jitter specs are a few ps only. I am using that now.
In NOS mode jitter is subject to the amount of jitter the DAC is fed with. Remember, this is why I wanted the I2S connection, because I wanted NOS mode. The jitter from SPDIF can well be 200ps or much more. From I2S I don't know it, but I already have my thoughts, looking at the scope and the way steady picture of the perceived clock data (I will measure everything officially in due time).
So, I think I can fairly state that the sweetness is coming from less jitter. Or the other way around, the roughness as how I know it, comes from high amounts of jitter.

Keep in mind, I am doing something here which other people didn't do before me, and I mean not in the consistent setup of (actually) NOS, a most high grade PSU and tweaking an I2S connection from a PC. And some fine speakers to hear the difference within a second and blahblahblah.

Now, proceeding with the sound quality it seems that I have to remap my mind/memory/expectations from music through loudspeakers;
I know the sound of NOS so well (what about 30 months in a row listening for differences at developing XXHighEnd) that it (yeah what) has become a reference for me. A kind of absolute reference on how e.g. a synthesizer must sound. The same counts for trumpets and everything with very high transients. Of course because it all sounded natural it was allowed to have that reference. But the reference was wrong ...

Earlier in this topic I think I said (or maybe it was offline somewhere) that the "sharpness" of this DAC (just think squares) made my horn speakers resonate at certain frequencies. Also, those frequencies would create standing waves in the room, and e.g. women voices may become unevenly harsh spread over the frequency spectrum concerned. What I did not tell is that I got rid of that by means of some "softener", and the softener just was the (TVC) preamp again. It rounds all squariness so much that all just is fine again.

But guys, the only thing this DAC does is presenting everything very very good as how it receives it. I showed you the square wave at 22050 Hz, and if you can find one picture on the Net that shows a better one ... be my guest. And that was SPDIF with its jitter ...
Now, what the I2S connection shows is that the additional "roughness" the DAC expresses is just jitter from SPDIF; Currently there is no such thing anymore of horn resonance or standing waves at higher frequencies.

The strange thing (for me) at listening to synthesizers, and of course compared to before, is that there now is again "sweet" detail in between the squary tones. Possibly this is best explained when I refer to the feedback of the cymbal to the stick which became audible with this DAC, which has the sweetness I refer to. This is now everywhere, and even a trumpet is not *as* squareish as I thought before.
And please keep in mind how difficult it all is, because like one can just never know how a synth should sound, one also can't know how square a trumpet is blown, which in the end is the same as one can't know how hard the strings are pulled from a bass so metal sound comes from the strings. So, all these things could trick at least me, and it now appears that beyond "natural sound" another dimension exists : real sound. So let's say that natural sound doesn't sound wrong and mimics instruments in general, but real sound makes an instrument sound as how it was played. Hmm ...

The latter gives quite some opportunities. I mean, having all things sounding natural is what I have been working on for a long time, and once you think it can't be improved, the fun is over. But when we now discover that there's also this other dimension, we can gladly be in search of improvements forever, because we just won't/can't know how instruments were played.
I say it once again, the metal from the basses is the most profound thinkable, and there was really nothing in me that could expect it was in the data. Still it is and it could be unveiled.

Right. So the DAC is ready now ? Hell no.
With the just learned data I think some other things can be tweaked. The I2S connection is not the final one, but I first want to measure whether this is ever going to make a difference.
Whether I faked NOS or not, with the current setup all is going through the SRC. Not the best for theories.

To be continued.
Peter

But how do you do that ? Can you please give a sequence of actions ?
(and I assume this is Attended ?)

Ok, so this is what I noticed too, but thought it was caused by something else. Hmm ...

If you want to keep 0.9w-7 you can play Unattended. The problem is not there.

Peter

Yes ...

For those who already knew (offline), what I calculated so far was 3450 euro ex (if applicable) vat and shipping. However, this anticipated on an onboard Firewire connection which now is to be replaced with the "secret" never done before other connection. This is more expensive (in fact just additional), and although I know what the kind of maximum is, theories tell me that there is a low boundary of 350-450 euro. But :

At this moment I can't tell whether it really will make THE difference because it cannot be tested in NOS mode (read : I won't construct a first version of it, not knowing yet whether it can be used or not).

Peter

Might that be at Attended playback ? (and only that !)