And Anthony, assuming I wil lnot be able to copy this behavior, what must I exactly do ?
You seem to say that searching for the Artist suffices (no album name) but then what ? then the errors already show up when the albums are "enumerated" for showing up in the Library Area ? is that what you say ?
So I need to know where/when exactly the errors show up.

Hi Anthony,

Very interesting ...
I must really give this a thought, also how to test for this situation. Maybe the situation can be copied by means of logging in as you from here. So I guess I will try that with the data I sent you - what was it ? 4 months ago or so.

But if this implies a differentiation between non-MQA and MQA, then it intrigues me what this can be ...

Regards,
Peter

I think it is. Very well noticed, Zheng !
And that also occupies extra (lot of) memory because always the whole album is Normalized - not only one track. Well, assumed the Normalization is not set to "per track" (which is possible but not advised).

Regards,
Peter

Hi Arvind,


Supposed that one track of that is e.g. 60 minutes, yes.

So that assumed apart from the ticks the remainder is explained as well because you won't have sufficient memory for that. Remember, this expands to Hires and although one track of 60 minutes (or a full album of that length) would fit normally, radically more than that will not.

If playback has been stopped and from there you quit XXHighEnd you could look at the free disk space to see whether something occupied space which you don't want/knew. I forgot the number but I think at least 2GB of free space should be there (on C:) and if not, that will be the problem.


This can be because now all don't need to fit in memory at the same time.


It won't be so that your Logging is (still) On, right ?
Otherwise I have no idea at this moment. All I can tell is that thiss is Hires and therefor requires a bit more and you may not be used to that. But, difficult to suggest this for real because your settings look fine and the PC you use should also be up to the task. Maybe try with the Balanced Load at 62 because I still don't know for sure what I have been using with that same PC and it very well can be 62 (now it is just a tad faster which is good for the (much) higher data rate which needs to be processed.
Let me know whether that helps.

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Zheng,

OK, that was too short.

The Anti Image button (under the Custom button).

Btw, also Peak Extend must be off.

Regards,
Peter

AI

Hey Jack,

Yes, that can *very* well be the issue for those who experience less bass. So I guess I am guilty to come up with the setting of 10 (I just tried that and nothing else) which was even prior to 2.10 being out -2.10 allowing for it- but let's say that this brings the super clear sound.
... which is almost opposite off "more bass" ...

I will also add that Robert can be nright just the same, because indeed the 10 value brings more treble but the bass I can not judge because of other reasons. My bass is completely different anyway - so different that nothing compares (old references are invalidated).

Now I am curious for Robert's response ...

Best regards,
Peter

High Robert. As always, thank you foryour input !
Btw, I noticed that the number "18" is not from the Nervous Rate anywhere (though you can set it alright). The 18 is from the Balanced Load. This too can be set at 100 ... but that is really not advised (really not for technical reasons).
So we do talk about the same, right ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Robert,


All is quite vague for myself lately because of using an other PC with different processor with different (BIOS) settings possibilities and with nothing in there which can be set like we could with the ASRock known MoBo('s). Still things largely can work out the same, or do nothing for indirect settings and *still* work out the same. So for example, what I use currently implies a frequency of 670MHz of which it looked like the Balance Load of 18 is implying it, but actually at this moment my Balanced Load can be anything, the PC still showing 670MHz. I am not saying that I don't understand, but it makes communication (and signatures ) difficult at this moment.
Of what I recall, the Balanced Load of 18 should normally imply 320MHz.



Peter

Zheng, without really reading your post (I really can't), I think the essence of what you want to know is this :

Taken that the deblurring happens at the front end (like on the Tidal servers) there's now too few reconstruction filtering going on and when indeed no filtering is further applied, you'd have it worse than normal Redbook. Mind you, to compare we can only use a NOS/filterless DAC (and your iFi is not that AFAIK). In addition, in XXHighEnd you should set upsampling to 1x and set NOT Decode HDCD/MQA.
This now sounds indeed horrible (to me). And this is (quite) contrary to what MQA ltd makes us believe. But remember, a normal DAC should be not NOS and should apply a reconstruction filter itself. This I thus now eliminated.

So it would be correct that in this situation there's too much of "deblur" and wave shapes are too steep. It just won't be right.

An other option would be to let XXHighEnd decode MQA, still set upsampling to 1x, disengage all filters (no red led in each of the filter buttons) and listen again. Now you'd have the Tidal Desktop player situation, with the notice that it still would be best to use a NOS DAC for best (genuine) comparison. Assumed the native sampling rate is 88.2 or 96 (not 44.1 or 48), you'd have a higher sampling rate requiring less "reconstruction" with still the non-optimal situation of better reconstruction being possible (like upsampling/filtering to 176.4 and higher).
I say it again : this last upsampling steps (AKA 2nd etc. unfold) are just that, also for MQA. But when the MQA DAC is avoided (or shut off for the MQA decoding and rendering) you'd still have the too steep (too much "deblurred") wave form shapes. Thus, apply your own filtering (set upsample to more than 2x in XXHighEnd + select a filtering means) and all is better (if all is right). Or, engage the Rendering part of the MQA DAC and all is also better but different because of a different filter (undoubtedly).



I know, this is all the most vague plus it is my own reasoning (but at least I have one, contrary to what ever I see elsewhere). IOW, what ever I reason it should be consistent and such reasoning is also the only way to make things consistent. MQA ltd doen't write it out anywhere, is silent everywhere and makes it actually voodoo or hoax otherwise.
Still it is able to sound (very) different, and still it does not incur for me shutting such MQA albums off within seconds, like I do with about all existing Remasters of any random anything. So for this stupid theory alone, it should "be" something (and not a hoax).

Ehh, thanks for listening ?
Regards,
Peter

Zheng,

I am not able to read your post which talks about white lights "thus MQA" etc. etc. ...
A white light should be "no MQA" and further it is blue (Authenticated plus signed off) or green (Authenticated, not signed off).

Maybe I will retry later, but essentially we can not communicate over this in this fashion. Sorry.

I'd also have to explicitly notice that when it really is so as you implicitly tell (white = MQA) then the iFi does not comply to MQA's rules and it can't (officially) be on market. Even the blue and green colors are stated by exact (RGB) color code.
So I don't know what's wrong here, but something is.

Peter

OK, I like the cover to begin with ...

Thank you, Richard.
I will try that album tonight (if I don't forget) and judge whether you and Alexandra are right.
Haha

Again, thanks !
Peter

yeah, well, ...

Hello Richard,

It is by design that it works this way. Notice that this is actually about the sequence of selcting & playing. It would become too difficult (and strange) to let sustain the other tracks. I tried, but ... (but think about it, how odd it would become)

Kind regards,
Peter