True and No ! ... About the Latency settings of your soundcard. From earlier from today ... Last alinea.


The answer to this, I think, lies in here :


Or IOW, chances are fairly high that the drivers your USB DAC require do not list in the Audio Device's properties - Advanced tab (with the 96/24 option). Or ?
Btw, don't get confused ... the options in there do nothing for exclusive mode, it will show though what the Vista Exclusive Mode can deal with.
Disclaimer : I'm still learning myself in this area.

Peter

Clear Andrey.

Not so fast ...
First I want to understand what happened whith your other setup. As far as I can tell Edward must be right ...

Ok, I'm lost.



Later ...

(I already changed the program, but I can put things back again, no problem )

Thank you for clarifying Russ !


Well, since the word is out anyway ... for those who don't want to get rid of their pre-amps for their own reasons *or* for those who just want to experiment ...
The whatever it is I "applied" (hehe) causes that each combination of volume of pre-amp vs. XX (with the same totalling output level I mean) will create another sound. So, there you have it. Now you can get lost in combinations.

Although with Russ it probably is (and initially was) about a proper balance between (pre)amplifier noise and using the digital volume in combination with a wanted output level, the both means of volume apply their own signature to the sound;
So far I "gave" you the opportunity to go over the hill and do it digital only, for now assuming that would be good and the best. But this is not necessarily true !
I never tried it but know I should. Otoh, I really like to get rid of the pre-amp (TVC) which is in the way for SQ reasons in general.

Ok, on to the next step.

Cement ? hahaha it really sounds like a joke. I do it like this : Happy with this setup and the fans run slowly and inaudible (to me). The (1TB) disks just make *no* noise at all. No spinup noises also. And all keeps cool.

If you have anything to ask, just ask ahead Brent. It's ok.
Peter


PS:

Actually I think this is a good idea ! I think I will organize my W2008 boot similarly. There must be some space left somewhere.

Ok. For 0.9u-1 (maybe tonight) I'll try to get you something which is for 44.1/16 (ouput !) the most similar to 0.9t. Currently this is not 100% so but the differences in the (sequence of) code are so small, that I'd say it can't make a difference. Well, I said that before.

Virtually there's another kind of problem : the fact that gross you find it better sounding. This too must come from the same small changes, so you can expect that to go then. Also see Version 0.9U feedback where Russ seems to be witness of some huge changes, and which must be about the same changes you sense. That is, he too just does not use the volume (if I understand right) and in fact I couldn't understand what his raving was about;
Things apparently *have* changed in that (in fact unchanged) area, and maybe I must be careful myself to what changes *I* listen to, including the useage of the digital volume (I never went back).

There's also the caveat of people setting their "DAC is" to something higher than 16 bits (which would be the most logical if the DAC "is" something else than 16 bits), while not using the digital volume, and in the mean time don't tell about the first (Russ ?). I mean, that *will* matter because the DAC is used completely different then (like you noticed the little smoother sound with the Juli@).

Last question : are you using Invert at these sensations (before 0.9u and after) ? (not that you shouldn't, but then I know which part of the code is applicable to you).

Then luckily this is not about harmonic distortion !

The downside is : now I don't know. Another question : did you try this all UnAttended ? (sorry if you already told it somewhere)

All,

At this time I can't emphasize more on how important the "latency" setting of your soundcard is.
I already knew it made a difference, but it was kind of trivial;

The past days I already discovered two times that things sounded "bad" and within a minute I thought of the latency setting I had moved up due to 96K testing, set it back and all was ok again. Mind you, audible within one second really.

Yesterday evening again things sounded in a way that I didn't like it. I wasn't feeling all that well though, so after rebooting the PC in order to get it better again, I just gave up on it. "It must be me" I thought. Well, this morning I found that latency set wrongly, so again the conclusion must be that it really matters. Mind you, more than before (0.9u).

So, try to find if you can adjust that setting, and might it be in ms, know that 1ms is the same as 48 samples of which I know 44.1/16 playback can cope with looking at the processing the program needs and a 2.4GHz Core Duo processor.
I know of others that 32 samples works too (my soundcard won't get lower than 48).

If you use an el cheapo soundcard to pass through SPDIF which doesn't allow to change the latency setting, just try to find another which can. It will make your day.

Oh, don't ask me about (legacy) USB. It might be infinitly small, or depending on the response of the system (hence varying) or may have a fixed "high" setting.

Good luck,
Peter

Hi Chris,

No, no gain is added. Let me guess why you ask ...

When I talk (in the Relase Notes) about dangerous levels of crackling (I didn't say it like that exactly, but is is what I mean), this is about something going really wrong to the matter of "calculations" and how much byte values should be. Let's say that the DAC can "clip" which really is about jumping the max voltage output it can have (say, 2V) from +2V to -2V in one go. This is too steep to follow for the output stage and it causes the "static" crack. This is so loud, that even with the pre-amp connected and its smallest volume setting possible, it can be rather loud. Not that the windows go out, but it has such transients that you'll drop from your chair.

Remember, this is about trying to get things to work in numerous different DACs, and while it's kind of guessing for me how they should be fed in certain situations, there's also the combination with Vista Exclusive Mode which is kind of wacky. I mean, it might report to the program that something is possible, while it actually is not. Thus, e.g. when it says that 32 bits should be fed per sample while actually it is 24, I'll be feeding with (remapped) 32 bit voltage values, while it really should be 24. And, in dB this is just 48dB too much. So, your music may be normally playing, but peaks (and all) are fed 48dB too high, and all will be cut at the +2V/-2V level, and each other sample may imply those voltage jumps.

In the end, so far, I did not hear anyone having such an experience (or they ar ein hospital now ) so I think this is not a problem. I had it myself many times though, just because of doing things wrongly. As a matter of fact the next coming hours will again be party time here, because of testing upsampling to 88.2/24 (so far this was 88.2/16).

Quite another reason would be that you make a mistake in the setup. So, follow the procedure as described in the Release Notes and you're ok, but still you must be careful to indeed follow that procedure. For example, if you forget to set the XX volume level to a reasonable level (while at first you don't even know what that is ! so you could set it too high), then the windows may go out even with normally playing music. It depends on the gain of your amps and the sensitivity of the loudspeakers. For example, a while ago I played with the 115dB sensitive speakers with 4x 140W RMS amps. Now *that* would be bad if it came out unattennuated ... Mind you, the 4x 33W I have now already would near self-launch the speakers.


Is this what you wanted to know ?
Anyway Chris, don't be afraid and just try it, following the procedure. I think you won't be sorry in the end.

And a question, if I may ...

What is the boot time of W2008 vs. Vista ?
And how awkwardish is the boot procedure ?

Here you go Brent. For the rest of the 90% of your waking day (some people ...).

Careful though, because I have the feeling there still could be one message "Error Windows2008". Please let me know whether it is there or not.


It's just me. Well, actually it is someone paying attention to everything and all, instead of a (Hydrongen) attitude "can't be different".
It's "you" out there. We do it all together.

Peter

The sound device properties (Advanced Tab) from Vista do nothing according to Exclusive Mode. It will represent the DAC's possibilities though.
Your DAC may upsample, but that doesn't imply that it can accept the higher input rate.

Hi Dave,


Hmm ... yes, that's a not so smart construction I brew there.

Ok. Dave, you *really* should put back your normal volume balance (including that resistor thing). Otherwise there would be *no way* of comparing. Things are so way way different, that you'd think it's the changed balance all the time.
You want to cut off highs ? you shouldn't -> This is the first example of it.
If anything has changed ... it is the bass. How can you tell now ?

Please put it back.


-18dB is fine IMO. You'd have lost 3 bits there, but they are in the analogue noise anyway. As long as you don't hear distortion it's good. Try -48dB to learn what type of distortion it is or LOWER (-54) if you can't hear it properly because it's too soft.

Edit : To be clear : After putting everything back, set your analogue volume to Max ! (after setting the appropriate digital volume).
Edit2 : err ... I meant the volume that needs the most max, the others adjusted to that.

This is not necessary as of yet, as my previous posts make clear. I sure hear it too in certain music, but so far I can (could ) accept it. The harmonic distortion is there though. It really needs dithering, but I'm afraid () it doesn't make the sound better. But if not indeed, so be it and 0.9u doesn't work.
Mind you, it is my opinion that if someone like Andrey has to visit the hospital because of so called "good sound", it just is not. No matter what "we" perceive from it.

Anyway, at this moment I'm far from thinking this is a lost case (the contrary), and first Andrey's answers to above questions are very important.
Next, I have some ideas on a good means of dither on one hand, or not needing it on the other. It is way complex though because I'm operating in area's outside of schoolbooks (and mr. Google for that matter). But hey, it's a way of living !