XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
May 16, 2024, 06:19:31 pm *
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 ... 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 [900] 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 ... 1047
13486  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: Storing music on a wireless external hard disk on: February 16, 2009, 06:40:43 pm
Well Bjorn, serious you are !

About the DACs ... they *make* the sound (together with some XX part Happy). Depending how serious you really are, I don't think you'll get anything most serious for that price tag. So a kind of advise is : you will be having everything under control including a good sounding "CP player" for a handful of euro's, now spend your time on the DAC !

If you just know this, no problem of course. Not want to spend the money ? again no problem of course.
But if you did not, the first thing you may do is investigate the difference between Oversampling and Non-Oversampling DAC's. There is really a big difference you know.

That's all. Happy
Peter
13487  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 16, 2009, 06:08:15 pm
Hi Johan,

I am fairly sure this particular error is solved in the 0.9x-2a from a few posts back. I still can't see what was wrong though, because I needed the Played.dat (not the !Played.plxx you sent). Played.dat is probably hidden in your XX folder.
But I think : never mind, because this error isn't there anymore.

Now I don't know what it means for the errors following this error. If all is right they are not there anymore as well.

Peter
13488  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 16, 2009, 01:15:08 pm
You read this, right ? Q Parameter Settings
13489  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: Storing music on a wireless external hard disk on: February 16, 2009, 10:40:41 am
Hi Bjorn,

Quote
a. Sound quality (SQ) will  not be negatively affected by transfer of (EAC ripped) music files over Ethernet from PC in study to be played by XX on another computer (PC or laptop) in another location in the house.

True.

Quote
b. Transfer over hardwired Ethernet faster and more secure than wireless transfer, but either mode of transfer OK (and does not interfer with SQ).

True.
But note that when the PC playing the music (your laptop) is receiving the wireless directly, we can expect that this *does* influence sound. This is because of the high activity of the wireless receiver/transmitter. Besides that, it can really incur for things like hiccups.
Whether this is really the case, depends on the particular implementation.

Quote
c. Laptop usually has built-in sound inferior to internal PCI sound card in desktop PC (in my case M-Audio Delta 192), but if hooked up to external DAC, laptop SQ not inferior to PC hooked up to same external DAC (using the same USB or FW interface, Vista and same associated driver).

Not true, but only because more parameters are involved;
A. generally *everything* a laptop does, is worse in the first place, and quite unsolveable in the second.
B. FW connections do matter, hence the transmitters do. For a laptop it can be a pain to get it properly working to start with, and next it must be sounding good. More expensive to try etc. etc.
C. In a desktop you have possibilities to tweak the USB connections to the sense that usually more "hubs" are internally provided. With a laptop *maybe* the same, but if so less accessible. Furthermore the laptop depends more on USB so it is not easy (convenient) to cut out half of the connections.

Together with laptops being sluggish always, I would never use a laptop. Only if you have one ready at hand, and it does all the things you want in a decent / good sounding way, go for it. Never buy one explicitly for the task, because the chance is 95% that you will be sorry.

I know, this is a typicle means of a "NAS" if you like, which should not be confused with a 100% dedicated music PC (which I would not call a music server). This theoretically implies that you can have the storage anywhere, but still need that music PC. If you have two music rooms, of course it is logic to use something as a laptop for it, if it is about you listening only. But better would be two PCs like you'd be having two CD players without a PC.

Lastly, note that this repsonse is in the context of nitpicking the best sound out of everything *and* is about avoiding the chances of not being satisfied (up to glitches and all) while you can't do anything about it, but being annoyed.

Quote
2. If instead of using Ethernet/wireless, you copy music files onto removable hard drive (HD), both USB and Firewire acceptable interfaces.

As SeVeReD said, USB should be avoided when you have an USB DAC.
Then, although in the base you are right, I see no reason to do so, unless you don't have the ethernet connection. But then it would be tedious, and you certainly won't be copying the music you want to play on a per day basis, and instead you would want it on line all. In that case the "NAS" principle has become useless ...

Does this help ? Happy
13490  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Weird DPC latency stuff on: February 16, 2009, 08:46:53 am
I think this is very well possible, yes. Didn't know it though.

Don't draw the conclusion that because DPC shows a lower latency during playing, the latency really is better (although even that is possible I think). DPC just operates in "some" way to measure latency, and this can very well interact strangely with what is applied for better SQ.
13491  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Errors X1 on: February 16, 2009, 08:24:51 am
But it is okay to do it anyway. Happy
Btw, this is solved in the next version.
13492  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 16, 2009, 03:09:24 am
Thank you Johan.
I will look at it tomorrow, but it looks like that "IM" as the internally interpreted title of the album (2007 - IM)- and its 2 characters only, is doing it.
13493  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ? on: February 16, 2009, 03:03:22 am
Quote
Several releases of XX have had too much energy in the treble and upper mid. MB this is because Peter has tweaked it that way to suit his own PB chain and speakers, I don't know.

Pwew, difficult ...
Ok, some brief (objective I hope) remarks :

1. This should hardly be about my system, but then personal likings, if any. My high output is 16dB uplevelled already opposed to how it officially should be.
2. I don't recall to (wanting to) head into those directions by means of the software. By accident it does though, sometimes.
3. It may be useless to refer to my playback chain from what we heard those 15 hours, because that was SPDIF while the virtues of the NOS1 are with I2S.

The differences between SPDIF and I2S are rather large, but (or *thus*) SPDIF was used for both DACS to compare apples with apples better.

Important or not, I just copied the remarks of the visitors without any colouring of myself, and might the statement have been "the worst system" or "the best system" either wouldn't have said much because "the system" is so much created by the software already, let alone the DAC. But of course the rest of the chain does have its influence, and in the case of the visitors it may be good to say that both were explicit dipole lovers, which is quite some opposite from horns. yes

In the very end it is dangerous - or not a good thing anyway - to explain (XX) things through a system, no matter how truthful and logical that would be. We never did because we never felt the need to, and that is very very useful because we all could discuss about the same thing. However, I think that a. we all have become much more experienced on listening (I sure have in the past 2 years) and b. we may be reaching limits where the rest of the PB chain just can't be avoided anymore. Therefore, let me add to this "pwew" response my latest experience :

Referring to the post from today from SeVeReD (Re: Q experiment anyone ?) he talks (including earlier posts in that topic) about "a wall of sound". Apparently he can encourage for this by means of Invert On;
Then, this week I visited the designer of these horn speakers, and by means of a small tweak in the filters (about eliminating a dip in the 120 Hz region) he created a massive wall of sound, which I "stated" to be way too much a wall of sound. Voiced and instruments became to big of it (imagine a voice to be over a meter in diameter).
Lastly, by pure coincidence (that it happened right tonight) I was able to play the NOS1 how it should be and how I want(ed) it : completely NOS withpout filter over I2S. Together with Invert now *that* creates a wall of sound in my room and PB system which I could not with this DAC so far (and the software versions since ??).

Now if you watch above alinea closely you see that "wall of sound" (which may be very deterministic for "a system") was created 3 times in 3 very different ways, the 2nd one actually changing "the system" really. The first is just a software setting, the third a change of the DAC including a software setting.
I can't speak for SeVeRed really of course, but if I didn't know otherwise, the other two means of changes would make me swear I was listening to complete different systems. And as you can imagine, more laid back opposed to a wall of sound just *is* completely different.

Btw, the most characteristic of the NOS1 operating really NOS (and filterless) I2S connected, is the unrivaled dynamics going together with the sweetness of I2S. SPDIF connected the dynamics should be as high, but as how it comes to me, is "smeared" again because of the roughness (opposed to sweetness) of the SPDIF connection. So, these dynamics come to you as very very clean. The fun is, this would lead to sterile without further changes, but including the wall of sound andthe warmth added because of that, just makes it a (3D 3D 3D) mixture I LOVE.
With normal sized voices. Haha.

Quote
The problem is that one versions good SQ is often ruined in the next version due to implementing more formats, changes etc. that has nothing to do with SQ in themselves.

I hear you very, very well;
As far as I can tell, those reasons for changes are behind us, because it just all has been done. At this moment I can only hope that the current version is good for SQ for everybody, and if not, the Q2-Q5 can do something to it. I am sure (!). The problem of course is how.

Right, having said this all, I think I only now see how to interpret this one :

Quote
But these are characteristics which also has come forward in my system, which is very different fra Peters.

... which makes all I just said unnecessary.fool  After proper interpretation (I think) I said the same as you wanted to express. I never like to scratch carefully typed words (can I ? hehe), but what it comes down to is that earlier versions sounded better, right ?
Hmm ...
13494  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 15, 2009, 07:40:39 pm
Quote
Plus I really felt pulling it down brought some digititis back

IMO this is true. Some sibilance in the highs as it occurred to me yesterday right after changing it (to 17,17). But the bass seemed to change for the better.
Not sure ...

Quote
Peter, did you let your guests get used to this setting?  invert/non-invert? It is a big change (maybe threw them at first

No, not really. We compared DACs, and did not get into "at what setting which DAC may sound best". And since I'm not done with these settings myself ... dancing

13495  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 15, 2009, 07:30:38 pm
Hi again,

When you are easily able to copy the bug, you just as well might try below 0.9-x2a. I have done my best in there to solve "it" by theory.
Also, *if* the bug still occurs at startup, please try to quit and again startup XXHighEnd before deleting those two files. I have built in something that may cause it not to happen over and over again at startup.

Also, there are some more error messages in there, so if the bug still occurs, you might rather report (see previous post) from this 0.9x-2a version than from 0.9x-2.

Peter
13496  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 15, 2009, 06:34:37 pm
Hi Johan,

Quote
Deleting Played.dat and A!Current.....PLXX files solves this error/loop.

I can't find this problem ...
When it happens again, can you before doing anything else (so don't start XXHighEnd (again)) post these !CurrentlyPlaying.PLXX and Played.dat files please ?
What I'd like is the situation from when things at first go wrong. So, this is not at the next startup I think, but earlier (??). If only at startup things go wrong for the first time, then that of course.
I hope it is clear !

If at the moment you are posting those files an error is on the screen, please post that error. Never mind you did it before already, please do.
Might the log be on, please once again post the XX logfile of that situation (X3 is not necessary).

Thank you,
Peter
13497  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 14, 2009, 07:11:18 pm
hello P
went doewn to 17 on both 2 and 3 and it cleaned up the midbass!
q1=4
q2=17
q3=17
q4=0
q5=0

and

I think it sounds better with q1=4 q2=17 q3=17 q4=0 q5=0
treble is crisper and better integrated with upper midrange; 30 on 2 and 3 is over the top on midrange focus and a little more mellow,maybe a good match for a little forward sounding system
x2 got more 3d than 0.9w-9b



Hi Leif,

My visitors I talked about (you know, Visitor A and Visitor B) at some stage made the remark that the piano (wing) was dry. It was an explicit remark. So I stuffed in the 4,30,30,0,0 which before that was at 4,0,0,0,0. Within 10 seconds their remark was "too much !" and "can it be down to one third of this ?".

So I guess it really works !

I just now turned it down to 4,17,17,0,0 and at first glance this gives a better balance. 30,30 seems over the top indeed ...

Thanks !
Peter
13498  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 24/96 or 24/192 on: February 14, 2009, 02:56:26 pm
No, never tried W2007 yet. But I will the RTM as soon as possible.
Peter
13499  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 24/96 or 24/192 on: February 14, 2009, 01:02:10 pm
Hi Thomas,

Oh yes. This topic is a bit old I guess. Happy
Since a year or so all bit depths / sample rates from 16/44.1 up to 24/352.8 are supported.

Or do you mean you can't get it to work ?

Peter
13500  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / 0.9x-2 ATtended on: February 13, 2009, 09:44:50 pm
Hi all,

I could be under the impression that with Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4/Q5 = 4/30/30/0/0 Attended sounds better ...
?

It is the second time now that I play somewhat longer with Attended (first time was a few days back) and that this occurs to me.

grazy

But can I find some who agree ?
Pages: 1 ... 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 [900] 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 ... 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 0.547 seconds with 12 queries.