271
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: July 08, 2014, 06:16:56 pm
|
Seems like there is an active filter in 186i when AP is ticked instead of Custom, when plying at 8x oversampling.
Only with 8x hence not with 16x ?
Yes, with 16x too. If I recall correctly when I tried to play 8x I had to go into the filter selection box and select the 176/192 filter in order for 8x AP to play at all. So 16X AP with the 705 filter sounded different from 8x AP with the 176/192 filter and the both sounded different to me to 16x and 8x AP in 186a. Hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
272
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: July 08, 2014, 01:07:21 pm
|
Interesting, I had two folks from the Philadelphia Area Audio Society in my listening room the other night and they both preferred the sound of standard AP via 186a verses the custom filter in 186i. They felt that the custom filter sounded too rolled off in the HF. Not sure I agree with their assessment.
Another thing, maybe its my imagination, but standard AP sounds different to me in 186a than in 186i. Seems like there is an active filter in 186i when AP is ticked instead of Custom, when plying at 8x oversampling.
|
|
|
274
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: July 05, 2014, 11:32:00 am
|
Two things with 186i: sometimes when changing volume during unattended playback the track will "skip", like a needle bouncing on a record, as the volume is changing. One time I had to stop the track because it wouldn't stop skipping. This is very inconsistent as I can often change the volume with no skipping at all. Secondly, I played a 24/96 track yesterday and it sure sounded good! I unticked "Custom," did not tick arc Prediction, and turned off all upsampling. Very nice.Okay, three things: I'm really surprised that more NOS1 owners, standard and upgraded, haven't posted 186i impressions. The sound on my system is the best ever, again. ![Happy](http://www.phasure.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
275
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: July 04, 2014, 01:35:19 pm
|
In your XXData folder for each day a backup is made of the active preset file of the previous day. So use one of which you know it still worked for the version concerned.
Let me know whether this helps you. Yes, but only after deleting the PresetLoader.XXSI file. Then and only then was I given the option of selecting a previous preset loader file. Hope this makes sense. Before deleting the XXSI, if I just tried to swap the engine 3 and .exe files, I got the following two errors: 1. Error at initializing conversion from string "to type "Decimal" is not a valid setting: 63, and after clicking OKAY on the error dialogue box, 2.Error opening settings: Preset file From there I was not given a choice to load a different preset file until I rebooted. But that "choice" happened while rebooting. After the reboot I'd get the same series of errors. As stated above, this was only solved by deleting the PresetLoader XXSI file.
|
|
|
276
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: July 02, 2014, 02:23:50 pm
|
So I tried to revert back to 186.a last night and could not overcome repeated preset errors. Unfortunately, when I removed the 186.a XX.exe and engine3 files from my XX folder it had presets active. Moving them back into the XX folder all I get now are preset errors and going to a "previous preset " setting doesn't work. Do I have to reinstall 186.a from the beginning or is there a particular preset file I could delete to get my original 186.a files to work?
|
|
|
277
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: June 30, 2014, 10:43:36 am
|
So for months now I've preferred 8x to 16x oversampling. 16x was just too refined and flat sounding. However the new Custom filter checkbox with the "Preferred" 705 setting has not only put the punch back into 16x but the tonal quality is in another league from anything I've heard from a digital system. Entirely natural and balanced. Nora Jones like never before. Thanks Peter!
Now what about hi res stuff? Previously I'd turn off all upsampling for hi res. If I do that now I guess I have to turn off all filters? Haven't tried yet and am just wondering.
|
|
|
279
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: June 28, 2014, 04:58:48 pm
|
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that without the new NOS1a driver we couldn't select the Custom checkbox. I just did that, selected Custom, and got a very different sound from the arc prediction checkbox. I think I like Custom more than arc prediction but am surprised it played. Is there something wrong that I can play music selecting the Cutom checkbox without the new driver?
|
|
|
280
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: June 27, 2014, 03:05:21 pm
|
Will try your AI suggestion sometime this weekend. I've started a new position at work (life in prison without the possibility of parole cases instead of death penalty cases) and until they hire my replacement am doing two jobs. Time is precious........
|
|
|
281
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: New Filter request(s)
|
on: June 27, 2014, 01:32:53 pm
|
Had an hour last night so I gave 186-i a try on my standard NOS-1. As there are so many alternatives and I didn't have much time these are only first impressions. First, as great as the soundstage has been, it became even better. Single Instruments as well as orchestral sections are even more defined and ""right there" within the sound stage. Second the venue whether recording studio or live on stage is much more easily heard even on cr*ppy Eva Cassidy recordings. And lastly, it seems that its no longer possible to get the HF to distort, which is both pleasing and a little weird. I was playing female vocals at 90-92 db and they sounded great except it was too loud. My normal levels around 85-88 sounded good too but at 16x upsampling they were a bit too smooth sounding. At 8x and even 4x they seemed to have more weight and punch. When I was testing the upsampling settings I was using the 176 filter which allowed me to play 4x. 8x, and 16x without changing the filter. I thought 16x sounded much more like 8x using the 176 filter so that filter was definitely preferred for 16x. The 705 filter just looses to much punch on my system (91db speaker sensitity).
Am hoping a 384 filter is added to the mix just to give that a go too! I tried the AI filter using a wave file but it took forever to process. After two minutes of waiting for a standard 16/44, 4 minute, wave track I gave up. Though I'm saving my pennies for the NOS-1a upgrade, am really wondering if its necessary after what I heard last night!
|
|
|
285
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: XXHighEnd Eliminated ?
|
on: May 14, 2014, 07:11:06 pm
|
Also, what about upsampling rates? 8x has been my preferred setting lately. Surely even with the NOS1a the sound will change at different upsampling settings. Oh, one more thought; will a SFS of .4 sound the same as 200? Can't wait to hear this "new" DAC!
|
|
|
|