Hi again Jack,


Yes, I already thought about this somewhat, and it really would be a struggle for me to find out. In rare occasions people skip an upgrade, so they have two in one go. You skipped 10 or so. But then you are a rich man because of saving on shipping costs.

I'm almost inclined to decline any upgrade request. It is the last of Mohicans ! Sometimes I am sorry to not have such a relic myself ! Otoh, we still have nightmares of seeing the Windows 7 little coloured balls twirl ... until they stopped. It was (Russian) roulette for each one we made.
You have been a good father.

Having said that ... I said it because I suddenly think of one other existing. In Serbia. It broke down on estimate 6 times in the first 6 months.

Jack, if you are happy with it, then no reason to upgrade. But if you do, expect inordinate SQ improvement by now. 100% guarantee.
Send me an email if you like to know more. OK ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Arvind, Yes, this (see below).

Just not right for the period of 0.1 second (so that is theoretically 441 subsequent base samples which are wrong.
It exactly this what the "Crack Detect" trips on.

It is not your rip. It is just in the master of this.

If you play this with the Custom filter, it will pass (I checked). No idea what you will hear for this small period of time.
Theoretically this is a close to 22.05KHz tone without anything else (it is safer to think it is ~11KHz). But it also clips, so this really is not right.

Best regards,
Peter

Hahaha, maybe it looks like that when you want to see that. But I see one "bit" more. 01 vs 11.


That we, of course, believe.


And that seems to be key. Well found !
Thank you Stanley, thank you Richard.

Regards,
Peter

Richard,

The SFS=12 did not last very long for me. I took it back to 8 and there it remained. Pretty good balance between all, still being dynamic and sounding sufficiently full at the same time. I will try 10 thouh.

Great stuff - thanks !
Peter

Hi Arjan,

Do you mean that Ramesh' solution works fine for that laptop ?
Or that is all just worked out of the box for this laptop ?

Regards,
Peter

I think, what I recognize of this, is the Operating System means of storing "form settings" and this has failed on you. Nothing I can do about it.
What happens if you rename XXOSK.exe to e.g. XXOSK1.exe and start that one ? I think all could reset, but use that name from then on (nothing checks for that name and nothing starts the XXOSK from within XXHighEnd).

Regards,
Peter

OK, ... received this. But not much clear at all.
Can you point me to the original Activation Email ? You can do that by email if you like !

Hey Richard - this is very much welcomed.
Yesterday I had the plan to try something else today for the low SFS which I had at 0.7 the past days and which I switched back to 0.9 yesterday already. But still a sense of what you are talking about : a bit too thin.
So in is your SFS = 12 and tonight we'll see what it brings.

Thank you !
Peter

WHAT ?!

And prior to this it was what ?

No, I'm sorry.

This is a really nasty problem which can't be solved once it is occurring; it is the combination of a Microsoft problem which can emerge once the OS is upgraded at some stage plus the "code base" as used by MQA which does not allow an "easier version". I had a hard time finding a PC which does not work myself, eventually found one (W8.1) and with all the patches and MS updates of the world, I could not get it going.

But in the end there is something else ... Look at the message (from Arjan) you refer to. I tink that was my intention to happen (never mind, it's only a logo). But it seems that this got its own life and now decoding won't happen on a PC which actually can do it (Arjan's example). This is a bit daft ... and already put in my todo. But don't hold your breath for it, OK ?

Peter

Hi Ramesh. That is what I meant with my "do you really care ?".
After that (Activation) we can try to find out whether the low level is normal or not, for that laptop. But by now I could point you to the system volume which maybe could attenuate the sound. I don't think it can, but ... (a lot of things might have changed since this was all developed).

Good luck now and thanks for holding on !
Peter

Arjan, can you try a random other PC ?
I have talked about this earlier on. Once happening like this, no solution is known.

Peter

Ramesh - Do you realy care ?
(I don't understand nothing much of this, but what it is about then ?)

Peter

Hi Arjan,

I think this is a combination of having all fine on the Audio PC, but not having the MQA decoder working on the "Tidal" PC. The Coldplay works (but doesn't) because it is 44.1. The MQA decoder works when you see the sampling rate next to the MQA icon. See below for the (right hand) Cold Play one.
Also, for an e.g. 96 the input sampling rate must be 96, not 48 as your screenshot shows. Of course you can only see what it should be once you have that icon on it.

For next attempts, throw first all what's MQA out again. So you need to re-Prepare. In the Library Area you will see the sampling rate icons already from the Search Result.

It requires 2.09 on that Tidal PC. Can that be the culprit ?

Regards,
Peter