Arvind, I forgot ...
Not sure whether I mentioned it somewhere, but you can try the SFS of 0.90 and see what happens to your bass. With that I have Q3,4,5=1.

Peter

Thank you for your contribution, Robert.

Regards,
Peter

Thank you Arvind.



This is a bit hard to believe (the first part of it ). I mean, if you judge this relative to the "old" NOS1a ...
I rather have the idea that you possibly have to set more gain in the Orelo than the theoretical 6dB (you will understand what I am talking about). I mean, you can't compare with the old situation, right ?

Best regards and enjoy !
Peter

Mani, beautiful. And beautifully spoken.

I only heard it this morning too.

At this moment coincidentally the track "Raven" plays from Christian Willisohn - Heart Broken man. This is the 4th track. But while reading your text, the goosbumps rose to infinite height. I don't know what the track (lyrics) is about, but the chords certainly matched the mood a 100%.
So yes, that is what music can do.

Thanks ...
Peter

OK, too much IQ for me or not enough knowledge of music.
I'm quite sure I know what you refer to. Care to explain it ? or would that be daft ...

Regards,
Peter

Jonathan, then I am afraid you did not follow the activation email precisely.

Go to Settings, RightClick on the Save As button (this button is close to the top), confirm all and re-initiate the Paypal procedure.
Money will be returned right away as part of the usual procedure.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Mani, thank you for sharing.

There must be something special in your situation with the Intona. I mean, what I recall is that everybody agreed that the Intona had to be out since 14393.0 (this is unrelated tho te G3 upgrade), except for one - you. Maybe there are more people like you, but then they did not announce themselves.

Indeed, everybody can choose. And we can bet that what today is to be set up as A will tomorrow require B.

Regards and thanks,
Peter

Hi Jonathan - that would be 8 weeks when we wouldn't run into the vacation season - or pass that.

Regards !
Peter

Well ... I have the good old Arc Prediction engaged for close to a week by now, and I must say that "this seems to be it" again.

Dryer, more natural and especially : the right amount of colour in cymbals (I found this lacking somewhat, lately). But also generally : more joy or something. More interesting at all fronts. Shows better what the artist is about.

Thanks !
Peter

At this moment I can't tell whether this is (relatively) easily possible or not. You actually should ask Jussi because I recall that ever back he made his software (or sound engine part) run on ARM for the Surface. Mind you, this can be (or could be !) done for WASAPI only. The kind of fun was that already that behaved like a nice audio endpoint because WASAPI inherently supports (supported ?) such a thing.
On a side note, I have been glad not to dive into such a solution because no ARM Surface exists any more ...

So the question is how transparant this ARM/WASAPI is. If this is not Surface related at all, it can still be done. But Jussi will be able to tell from the top of his head; I will only know after attempting it.

On another note, do notice that exactly nobody is using WASAPI (in XXHighEnd) while everybody is just allowed to. It just sounds worse (and is another layer) and has few possibilities compared to Kernel Streaming. But hey, this is on normal Windows where the choice exists ...

Peter

Hmm ... Tell me, do you have actually normal sound at the highest sampling speed (705600 / 768000) ?

Let's say you are ready for the next step : let HQP run on your Windows machine - the exact same situation as how you currently use XXHighEnd and which works (at the highest speed, I assume).
Maybe you already tried that, but do notice that the topic we are typing in is exactly about this. Thus if you can not get this to run first, then any NAA situation will be too problematic.
Now :

Assumed that you already had HQP (Desktop version !) normally running on the same Windows PC as where you have XXHighEnd running, you will then definitely know how to set things, right ? Now do the same in the NAA environment.
Doesn't work there ? then call out for Jussi.

Keep in mind that for me too it is mighty difficult without the experience (again see this topic) and that, for example, it is very easy to forget to set that one Windows setting (I again refer to that screenshot) - which coincidentally is a W10 issue.
Anyway, it would be my guess (easily) that the NAA version hasn't been tested by anyone regarding this matter. Or maybe it was, but then not the Windows incarnation of it.
And uhm ... I did not even know that this existed ...

We'll get it to work !
Peter

Right.

Hi Jonathan,

Possibly I don't have any real input for you, but I can always try ...

I feel that for 50% of the "challenge" you may think upside down. But, this is already hard for myself to pose correctly. So :

If you run XXHighEnd on what we'd call the Audio PC, then this PC containts totally nothing. Btw I am pretty sure that you do similar with the iSCSI boot (but it is not 100% the same, technically). Thus :
OS boots from RAM and now everything and all can be disconnected. This includes the Network.

When music data is needed, the network is connected (software wise) and the files are loaded in RAM of the Audio PC (this is the PC which plays the music and where the DAC is connected to). After that, network is disconnected again.
Side note : when RDC is used then a small portion of the network needs to stay alive - let's solve that one day.

When music is playing, it is XXEngine3.exe which is active. Nothing else. This situation is as lean as I could make it. Notice though that XXEngine3 is running on the Audio PC itself which may feel counter productive because others do this some other way around : they control the Audio PC on a distance, the player GUI running on that PC at the distance. In our case the player GUI runs on the Audio PC itself, but is completely killed when music starts. Only a small hook to keyboard shortcuts remain, for control.

So intead of controlling the Audio engine from a distance, there is no control needed because all else on the Audio PC is killed and the remaining situation is the same as the one you're thinking of : the audio engine running on its own in a dedicated PC (because it just made itself into that).

The way the music is loaded is exactly the same as in your thinking (I suppose) with the difference perhaps that it is not pushed but pulled by the Audio PC itself. When ? well, when no music is playing - you being in (GUI) control again and thus harmless.

The mistake you may be making is the thinking that the Audio "processor" must be small and not-consuming etc. etc. ... WRONG. Wrong because nobody has ever been able to proove that anything small sounded for the better; the contrary - it is deep-sh*t (and should be your situation as of now, no matter you like it very much).
So my approach is - and always has been the other way around : use that super machine which actually is not needed, with the notice that when it drives a 100 miles/hour it still is in 5 seconds at 200 miles/hour. This, while your PC barely gets at 100 at all.
And the more this strategy is put through, the better the sound is (which is also related to what can be done under the hood for processor cores etc.).
In the end it is the combination, like the 20++ core processor system only consumes 30Watts and that even with linear PSU.

You did try Minimized OS, right ? because it is all about that.
Maybe I should also ask about Unattended Playback because that is what I implicitly talked about (no GUI).


If I am all the way off, just tell me !
And of course don't hesitate in being creative and improve. It's all about that you know. So the text above is only trying to give you some context of the current situation,

Regards,
Peter

Haha - Jonathan,

I regard 17% very hight because I don't see other than 0% at 720MHz.
But a Celeron is (indeed) very inefficient so I guess this will be right.

It can very well be that you have set Q3, Q4 and Q5 at 1, because that combination utilizes 100% of two processor cores. Another combination with "1" (but I forgot which - probably Q3 or Q5 - but only one of them now) implies 100% for one core.
This is all on purpose and even fake;
Reality will show with Q3,4,5 at 0.

Hey, well done !
Peter