Hi Dennis,

With two cores you can not set Q3,4,5 to 1 as this hogs two cores for playback and nothing else will work (well). Although I don't have the experience, I think it is best to set none of the three to 1 and then see whether the stuttering helps.
In the Processor Settings section in Settings, there's "Not Switch during Playback" setting. You can engage that and see whether it helps. Higher than 1 is allowed for each and the higher the less stressing on the processor cores.

Otherwise a surprise for you by now : your laptop is far from "capable" for XXHighEnd. This is not about the processor speed, but about possibilities in general. Do yourself a favor, get something decent and be guaranteed that you only thought that XXHighEnd brought you good SQ. You will see ...

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi there David (and welcome !),

This is from ever back release notes of version 0.9z-8-2 :

It was found that actually by accident 32 bit integer (!) files can play through XXHighEnd if only no Upsampling is applied. However, 32 bit files can not be Attenuated (as of yet). Therefore an error message will now occur when a 32 bit file is attempted to play while the Digital Volume shows Attenuation (playback will not start) and it should prevent you getting out for new windows.

And this is from Release Notes of 1.186a :

Since one of the last versions 32 bit files did not play anymore. Now they should again, but *notice* this has not been tested.
To keep in mind : 32 bit files never were supported officially and they still are not. However, with the XXHighEnd Volume at -0dBFS they can play (otherwise an error message tells you).

I recall that the person I re-instated this for, was happy with it. So it should work, but under the condition that it is Integer (not Floating Point), you can not upsample it and Digital Attentuation (in XXHighEnd) is not allowed.
For the not upsampling, take care that the little horizontal slider in the left pane denoted "1x, 2x, 4x, 16x" is set to 1x.

Let me know if this helps you, OK ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Brian,

Yes, that should work.

Regards,
Peter

Edit, Nov 15, 2011 : Mentioned download of XXEngine3-209-X1.rar has been replaced by the X2 version in this post.

Dear people,

I found an issue with the determination of a wrong byte order (this is what causes the burst of noise). And the thinking error (or maybe race-incident) which has been in there is quite unbelievable;

Ever back the analysis of the correct byte order was applied on the more native music data. Later, when more of filtering applied and which processing can all end up wrongly, this analysis was moved more "down" so the filtering processing would be caught just the same. Small problem : the code more down incorporates the digital attenuation. And since the analysis comprises of "detect too high difference values from sample to sample", the attenuation "squeezes" that.

Then I found that the analysis (deliberately) does not work over SFS (Split File Size) boundaries. But, the effect of that was never noticed : the smaller the SFS the less chance too many too high deviating values would be detected. This is hard to explain, but ever back (like 9 years) I determined that more anomalies had to happen in sequence before further playback would be rejected. A kind of : one tick is fine, but not 200 in a row.
*That* idea I now have abandoned;

The version of XXEngine3.exe you find below, trips with a "Crack Detect" message after 3 subsequent relatively wrong samples. This allows one glitch (of one sample !), a next to go back to normal levels, and not more. So if right after this "coming back" a next sample appears to go sky high (for deviation), something is regarded to be wrong and playback stops right away.

Regarding the latter, things vastly changed;
Previously the current buffer (which already could contain wrong sample data) played empty and the next one - the one with the detected wrong samples, was not further offered for playback. Sadly, a buffer can easily play for 30 seconds and even many minutes for "only" 16/44.1 (48) capable DACs. From of now, when the filling of a buffer detects wrong samples, playback is stopped immediately (but it will still depend on some amount of internal buffer). The difference thus is that playback is now explicitly stopped, while previously it played until the main buffer was empty (this is the SFS buffer).

Remark : We will "obviously" see that a 100 people (probably including myself) will have many occasions of the Crack Detect message occuring, while they think it is false alarm. Well, it won't be really, but it depends on how wrong things really are, and we can not know that in advance. What I am talking about is ripping glitches (envision you hear them as scratches) and the Crack Detect routine may trip on that now easily, if only close to the maximum voltage span is covered from sample to sample, and if only that happens 3 times within one SFS buffer. So indeed, when you play at a sampling rate of 705600 and imply an SFS of 30 seconds, then all this time actyally nothing is allowed to go wrong and a poor rip will let it go wrong. Do notice that a poor rip includes scratches on the CD and if these imply mentioned voltage span, then bad luck; playback will stop.

Of course everybody is going to report about their experiences and the tripping can be made less tight. But as we now know, when too loose we are going to hear it and we don't like that.

Anyway, it is good to realize that from 3 dimensions or so, the noise now is attacked and the most important one is the not thinking of the attenution in there; Nothing tripped forever, if only the attenuation was large enough. This also explains the not even occurring of the Crack Detect message, because the anomaly was not detected (in continuous form).

Lastly, when you receive too many stops (with mind you, most probably hardly audible anything at all - maybe a little LP-tick) then before reporting it, you should try to repeat the situation; Is it repeatable "on the second" (you can drag the time slider button to right before the happening, press Pause and next Play) ? then it will be a scratch in the CD *or* a for real too high transient. Is it not repeatable, then you ran into the real thing and the purpose of this topic ...

So let's have it !
Peter

PS: Kill XXEngine3.exe (click blue led in right hand border of XXHighEnd), unzip the below to your XX folder and start listening again.

Hey Bert,

I can imagine your "too relaxed" idea, but it is my advice to give this some time and explicitly watch for detail which now is there from the upper regions (the highest) and how this interacts with the less stressed sound which came fro mthe highs. In other words, how real were those highs previously and :


that.
Otherwise it is really getting used to because the whole presentation is different as different can be. And if we talk about "right" or "wrong" then both situations (say 2.07 and 2.09) can not be right both (both wrong, yes ).

Maybe try to focus on what actually lacks. I mean, "too relaxed" could be too subjective as well. Only when it brings you a stuffed ears feeling, it will be explicitly wrong (and that too is related to what you're used to, but alas).

I'll happily receive your final verdict - or again different settings perhaps ?
Peter

Interesting, to say the least ...
Dennis, you will be using "a" Processor Core Appointment setting. The 2 numbers you have chosen represent logical cores (hyperthreaded cores included). Try to find a scheme for your processor which explicitly uses two completely physical others (example : 3-5 will always be on a different physical core than 1-2).
Please let me know the result.

Peter

I don't know how we manage to do it, but the 3 tracks in my Demo I was talking about, are from that album.

Thank you, Anthony,
Peter

Hey Juan,

As you know I use an "open baffle" speaker. OK. Now, at some stage it started to occur to me that the oompf is now happening in about all. It is a very natural "habit" of music, but also pleasent and possibly subjective to what I like. I am now not talking about a bass instrument, but how e.g. a kick drum shows this fundament. But much more. So, at fairly moderate levels (say ~ 87dBSPL or so) for some track I felt the energy in the room, felt my woofers which is easy for me because of the open baffle thing, and started to wonder whether the excursion now not exceeds what I planned with it all. Meaning : more than I ever felt at these levels, like maybe 5mm. Just on hits and giving this lovely pressured feeling (I probably talk BS but this is how it comes across).

With each day passing I get more curious how this can be. And if I were the only one, then fine. But it looks like it works out the same for every one.

Serious warning : I can thus see the level of vastly more energy which must be going into this, while nothing changed anywhere. Say that I'd play really loud and did not expect this, something might break or overheats ?
It reminds me of an XXHighEnd version very long ago (maybe 8 years) that exhibited 16dB of more bass. It won't be that much now, but it could be interesting to see the settings of back then. And I should be able to find the forum posts about it ...

Peter

Dennis,


That won't be related to mentioned settings. Can be the "Use Remote Desktop" setting or possibly that you try this in Normal OS (W10 versions exist which do that but are OK in MinOS). Or the W10 version itself ...

If you have stuttering with these settings, then I'm afraid you'll need to back out a bit (try a lower xQ1 and see how far you can go with it, upwards). Or, try for your situation how the SFS relates (all works in combination with each other).

Regards,
Peter

Not particularly with these settings, but maybe two weeks ago 3 tracks from my Demo Gallery passed by and I wondered where the nastyness had gone (ADDC is not always the most friendly). But since I was just playing music from a larger playlist, I forgot to revisit it. So I guess I need to now !

I expect guitars with a lot of air in them and with a 2 fold more fundament and even punch. More slick too. Am I right ?

Regards,
Peter

Dear Ramesh,


Justified. And I set myself to solve it (today).

The culprit is this one :


Meaning : if one doesn't have the "senses" that this may end up in misery, then, well, it will.  And btw, this should trigger the alarm bells :


So if I see this, I will think "uh-oh" and next be in control (like quitting XXHighEnd would be the best solution, but which I do not do because I want to run into the issue (learning from it, so to speak).


If it would always be accompanied by this message, I would definitely have solved it soon. But people are telling that they don't see the message (after playback stopped !) so I better don't believe those people or otherwise I don't know where to start. And mind you please, this is completely different from the situation that playback continues after the noise.

Btw Ramesh :


There are two errors in that. 

Thank you for your clear description !
Peter

Hey Henk,

Nah, this won't be of much help. But as said in there, you can create such a leaner version yourself (with a lot of work).

Keep in mind that you'll need the Pro version, assumed you want to use RDC to the OS.

Thank you Henk,
Peter

Thank you very much Richard.

Yes, as I told ... people will have been encouraged by my own lower buffer settings and just like I calculated (in the other topic) how a 30x40 is 85 times larger than 14x1 for that buffer alone, there's a 85 higher chance that something goes wrong - thus minimum, other highered settings left out.

Kind regards,
Peter

Oh boy. I am not going to repeat the same again. So this time I will say : read again. And again. And again. Until you understand (not addressing someone in particiular and it is clear that the subject is difficult).

The program does not sort this out automatically. You must do it yourself with a button. The button is named Refresh. After that the program rememers that state. Until you restart the program, then the state is lost.


Only the proper aspect ratio of video is a more difficult subject. Almost nobody in the entire world understands that. Why it is so difficult I can not understand.
Haha.

Peter

So here goes for my Sunday morning blah :

Maybe we must all look beyond where we normally look, because I don't understand myself by now, where this SQ comes from. It is just too crazy, suddenly.

Last night, track after track, I was and remained amazed of what's all squeezed out for bass, mid and highs, mixed with totally unrecognizable tracks which are so familiar, as if they are played through an other system in another room, or live by the artists themselves, for that matter.
I repeat : I don't understand myself how this emerges. UNLESS - but I did not explicitly check that - it is all because I switched off the OSD texts (not the Wallpaper Coverart itself). So among all my by now wildest settings changes, that OSD Text being off, is really the only common denominator.

Help.

The last two days I played with :
Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
And just mentioning : Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
And thus OSD Text = Off. Wallpaper (front and back) On.

The OSD Text thing should not be underestimated, as it will do something to the OS itself but also to the Sound Engine which does not need to deal with it (in the loop of Playback, which is what it comes down to). Also :

I did NOT solve the issue of the Volume not working when no Wallpaper Covertart is used since 2.08, because exactly there the SQ change may be implied. So instead I offered the old means of (slow) volume change (with a .tst file, see Release Notes of 2.09).

Anyway, and I think you all may agree, the SQ change is so crazy, it is crazier than ever before. And where you guys may see the largest change between 2.08 and 2.09, for me this is way more difficult because somewhere between 2.08 and 2.09 I will have done something which I implemented on day X and which in aftermath is not recognizable (what it has been). So I G-D don't know myself !
It feels (also on behalf of you !) like "we" played with some setting just for trying, and now something popped in all of our systems. And now all is good (or at least changed vastly). IOW, no matter what settings you dial back into, the base of the SQ remains as it is.

The level of detail is inifinite.
The bass is infinitely loud.
The highs do not observe like wrong - they don't observe at all (brain has to time to observe).
And this gag remains for me : when I am sure the mids stay behind, something happens which shows the mids as the most profound ever.

I also keep on feeling that all "frequencies" are infinitely detached now. So maybe you reall me telling about the electric bass player and his own amplification (which always is true in real life) ... this now happens to everything. But meanwhile each shifted something like an octave in their own domain.
All things which can't be.


So Yes Richard, these things happen as long as we can't find our "setting". This is very very tough to judge for real merit because who tells whether that Clark Terry is a decent recording ? I mean, man, if things change so wildly then we must re-learn to listen and this includes re-judge. But of course Clark Terry is fine (not that I ever heard of him) and so we wander for that other setting(s). Well, I just gave mine so maybe that helps you and others (but two days in only).


Richard, maybe not. I had the same for two (other) days with only the change of SFS to 0.9 and the highest custom or native Arc Prediction. This is not miles off from yours, so that really should have something, but also for sure not for all (and this is about the SFS of 0.7 or 0.9). So this could be the wildest stereo imaging effect, but if it does not work for all, then good bye (I forgot where it went wrong for me). The crucial general one is the 14x40 here, which is a kind of intuitive change because of how the dials present it, but anyway that for a base is not wrong at all.
And of course when I see that working, I overdo it with a 30x40 ...

That this 30x40 for "base" does not work out for everybody with descriptions as "bland" ... I tried to observe that and I think this could be about the same I just told about : highs ? what highs. And it could be the largest pitfall ever.
So yes, completely true, especially in retrospection it could be that the highs disappeared (sort of). However, just because I have my ever test signal music, I just know how much of highs there is, but now it looks like highs where highs must be. This may be related to my high sensitive mid/high of 118dB (which is also crazy of course) but the mentioned "infinite detail" - which btw is also about "detail where detail should be" can only spring from "perfectly rendered highs". In other words : it is also very unbelievable how no disturbing highs are present any more anywhere (someone told the same but I forgot who - maybe Nick) which somehow seem to give room for the not-fake detail and which very much includes the again "infinite" clarity which is suddenly there everywhere. Mind you, an album like Joe's Garage (Zappa) has always been a strange one regarding the highs and which always lacked fundament. Listen to it now. Ultimate clarity which ... now has fundament ? no, I don't think it is that what happend. But a boat load of hash disappeared (at least that is how it comes across to me).

The effetcs of the above should be encouraged for by the 30x40 of Q1 but with a quite special side effect : removing fake detail hence noise, now bringing forward what should remain (whatever that is). So, this is actually back to my hundreds of times expressed curiosity : The buffers should all be as large as possible and not as small as possible because the latter theoretically imply noisenoisenoise (and super much overhead). And for those with a pocket calculator : 30x40 = 1200 while 14x1 = 14. So something is more than 85 times quieter.
Previously we needed this "harpening" (same as with photos) to perceive sufficient detail, but while sharpening is done by adding noise, by now, everything in the environment improving, the sharpening expresses as noise. Remove that and the native sound remains.

Blahblahblahblah.
But I still don't know what happened, where.

Anyway, going this direction a kind of obviously also highered the CockRes (this one is dangerous because not really in the same realm, but for (less) overhead matters it should help) and what remains is the Driver Buffer size and don't I also recall a Kernel Streaming buffer size somewhere (I never touch that one and maybe it can't even be changed - I forgot). Of course we have a related XTweaks setting (the Nervous Rate) and the SFS itself at 20 should be high enough not to bother.

Most crucial could be the 30x40 which now even works (as I said earlier, I thought that it could not, ever back that is) which I could try to give a maximum of way more. We must of course be able to run into limits, right ?

Did I say Help ?

Peter