So, now a better clue. xx9y4 and 9y8 start as administrator. The problems comes with 9z. So it might be not the setup. Maybe the new gui?

I removed the update. It had nothing to do with it. As the error occured the first time, I "played" with windows media player, creating a playlist. I started xxhe parallel without stopping wmp. I think that was, when it first happend. I don't know if this helps. I guess not very much

At 17.07.2010 Update for windows defender - KB915597 (Definition 1.85.2136.0)
At 15.07.2010 Windows Tool for "remove of dangerous software" (in german " zur Entfernung bösartiger Software" )
At 15.07.2010 Security update for windows 7

I am not sure if the error occured the first time on sunday or saturday.

I tried diagnostic startup but even then it is not working. I will try to remove the updates and see what happens.

The same problem I had last week on friday with a different system (Dell Notebook with Vista home). As far as I remember I tried it on this system a while ago and I think there was this error before. So the updates might not be the reason.

I uninstalled phasure and reinstalled it as administrator. I still does not work. The strange thing is, that it worked all the time and now suddenly there is this error...???

Hi Peter,
administrator mode doesn't work anymore. It say" XXHIghend stopped working" and in details
Problemsignatur:
  Problemereignisname:   CLR20r3
  Problemsignatur 01:   xxhighend.exe
  Problemsignatur 02:   1.0.3826.32428
  Problemsignatur 03:   4c223e27
  Problemsignatur 04:   XXHighEnd
  Problemsignatur 05:   1.0.3826.32428
  Problemsignatur 06:   4c223e27
  Problemsignatur 07:   29bd
  Problemsignatur 08:   106
  Problemsignatur 09:   System.InvalidOperationException
  Betriebsystemversion:   6.1.7600.2.0.0.256.1
  Gebietsschema-ID:   1031
If I start the program normal, there is no problem. I didn't changed anything. The only thing that was changed, was a windows update. Any idea how to solve?
Greatings Adrian

thx for the link. But I have no problems with distortions and I can only use DAP because of my DAC is a 96kHz unit.

I like to determine thie right buffer size of my hiface to use adaptive mode optimal. Most people were using 1024 so I thought I don't have to test it. With DAP 1024kb BS I get the to many buffer errors massege with Q1=0. This does not happen with 2048, Q1=0. But I can go down to 512kb when I don't use DAP and Q1=0. If I go lower than 512 I get the buffer error massege also with Q1=1. So 512 is the right size or 2048?
Is the buffer size set by the driver or is it given by the hardware (hiface) itself?  In both cases I can try to ask M2Tech for the right value.

The instruction to "how to determine the right buffer size" says if I don't have buffer errors in the "first few seconds" it is ok. So what are a few seconds? 3, 7 or 29? With q1=0 I get errors after 29 seconds with a buffer size of 256kb but with q1=1 I just can listen 3-4 minutes until I get errors. 29 seconds are not a few I would say. It seems no good way to determine the buffer size of the device anyway. And as far as I have read in the hiface thread nobody found the true size yet. But that also means that adaptive mode should not work right for the most people because they don't know the right buffer size of the hiface (or is this a system dependend variable. it shouldn't if I understand the instruction right)? The sound is always good of course. There are small differences but I wouldn't say that they can show if this mode is giving it's full potential or not.

Hi Marcin,
Great! Always these autosuggestions. I suffer from it probably the most. But why I got the buffererror at 1024? That should not happen if I use the right size or not? So following the instruction I must set it to 2048?

I tried the new version and accidentally I found I was using the wrong buffersize... I had all Q still set to 0 and suddenly after some minutes of listening there was a buffer error...so I guess 1024 is not the right size for Hiface? Ok, after that I set buffersize to 2048 and guess what? Better sound yeahh! So far so good. Now I wanted to try AI and AP again. Now I would say AP is definitly better than AI, it was the oposite before that buffersize change. Now AI sounds like there is some grain in the high frequencies. AP Is clearer and closer to the not upsampled sound, also better than the non upsampled sound as I can say so far. Another thing is, that I have now the best sound with all Q set to 0. I don't know if this makes any sense at all, it shouldn't as far as I know but it seems to be clearer set to 0. So that is for now and my impression might change but as always I cannot wait to settle the impression.
Greetings Adrian

Thank you Peter! I am curious further testing DAI.

I just can use 2XAP but I feel the same. It sounds unnatural and the sound seems to lose dynamic. With DAI I am still not sure what to prever. It has a better resolution than no-upsampling but it seems to cost a little dynamic. AI I would say is definitely better than AP. The only hook is, that it does not run longer than a couple of minutes, even in unattended. So I am using no upsampling.

If you like you can but it is not so important to me. I tried some different settings now. It is very interesing how the sound depends on it. With Hoerwege I used special mode scheme2. The hiface lacked the hf resolution as I said but when I switch to scheme3! and adaptive mode the hf resolution comes back. So the settigns depends very much on the device. Now I would say hifiace is better. It is more dynamic and seperates the instruments better with a more massive sound. The hoerwege has still a bit more "air" but in every other aspect it is not as good. So i still live on the same planet as you, puhhh

No this is for sure not wrong. But I deleted the reply because I like to listen to it a longer time. I hoped nobody has read it yet but you came before The hiface is not bad but hf resolution is realy not as good. Parts might be not as good like in the hoerwege. the hoerwege is also not a dream and technically it has not this superior asynchronus mode but highs are better that is sure. It is not better in every aspect. I still have to listen more.

It has something to do with Playerpriority and Q1 setting. The smaler Q1, the more often the track stops without "reason". I used at first playerprio "slow" and threadprio "realtime". then I changed playerprio to "normal". I think there was no change. I now use "nothing" and it could be better but I still have to use it some time to be sure.

I am not using unattanded yet, so it is possible. If it has no influence, it is a nice placebo