Dan, I guess I'm confused about what you mean.  Can you clarify?  I was referring to my Q1 setting in this latest version of XXHE - 0.9y6.  i.e. My Q1 setting on the main panel is 16.  In the previous software version I had this set at Q1=0.  Man, this stuff just keeps getting more and more geeky.

I have the Lynx AES16 card on Win7 like Dan and I'm getting a CPU usage of a fairly stable 5-7% with my Lynx card and XXHE Special Mode buffers at 32 and Q1=16.  If I move Q1 to zero it increases the CPU usage to 34-40%.  I'm still experimenting.

Mani, if your firewire interface is async that wouldn't the Weiss be buffering samples so that latency on the PC side would not be a factor?  Or is your firewire interface synchronous?

Mani, I downloaded it and would agree with your comments.  I'm using a Lynx AES16 card on Win7 and I have found that I can't use the lowest buffer size of 32 in Special Mode - it sounds like slow motion.  I hear a few cracks here and there....still experimenting....but overall a nice step forward in SQ.

Question - if the SQ improvements of this latest version are due to reduced latency, then would it not stand to reason that a properly designed async interface would be even better?  My experimentation with my AES interface has made it clear that final SQ out of my DAC is influenced by a bunch of variables that I'd rather not be at the mercy of: e.g. proper cable impedance/type, latency, electrical noise isolation, jitter of the source clock, etc.   Asked another way, if one is using an async USB interface would this latest XXHE version produce audible improvement?

 

I agree the kernel streaming special mode in the latest XXHE release is superb and a very audible improvement over the previous version.  I presume a large part of the improvement is due to reducing latency?  I'm using a Lynx AES16 card.....is anyone using an async USB or firewire interface with XXHE and, if so, are you getting an incremental improvement with KS?  I would think not since I presume a properly implemented async interface should make latency a non-issue?

Peter, how goes it with your NOS DAC????

I installed 9Y-05-06 today and can report that on my system engine 4 is easily superior to the previous version.  Like the other poster, I'm not sure what Special mode is and how one knows if it is invoked, but I really dig what I'm hearing. Thanks and congrats Peter.

I can report that the SQ on the latest 0.9y-5 on Win7 64 into my Berkeley Alpha DAC is a nice improvement over 0.9y-4.  As to the engines I find a slight preference for engine 4.  Engine 3 to my ears is a tad more smooth, but less live sounding. 

Robin Hood, have you actually tried the latest release of XXHE and the latest AES16 driver on Win7 to compare the sound quality?  If so, how do they compare?  I certainly hope Peter can realize the same or better SQ on Win7 ASAP as from a user interface standpoint it is superior to XP and Vista IMHO.

It would be nice if you could hear the ULN-8 in your system and compare it head to head with your Model 2.  You'd need a Mac to audition it, however.  I know one guy, however, who has a couple of Model 2's and he's heard the ULN-8 and he just says it sounds different, not better.  He also said he has yet to hear a DAC with an async interface that sounded good.  Note, supposedly the ULN-8's firewire interface is not async according to the primary USA dealer.  It will be interesting to see what comes out of CES2010.  Did you see the teaser from Chris on the Computer Audiophile forum?

Mani/Peter, given that the computing power now exists today to do the oversampling in hardware integrated with the DAC why would one expect to achieve better sound quality by doing it outboard of the DAC and using a NOS DAC? 

Peter, when is your NOS1 DAC going to be available for sale?  I hope you are on your way to CES2010 to unveil this new beast....   

Peter, since I never heard XXHE on Vista I have no frame of reference regarding if Win7 is better or worse...

Case in point....it wasn't until I installed an Antelope DA in between my PC server and my DAC that I realized how much my sound quality was being degraded by noise.  Now that I've heard the difference I could never go back.

My sense is compared to Samplitude v10 (a reference point for me as I did hear it on WinXP before upgrading to Win7), XXHE has greater resolution by at the slight expense of added coarseness.  Of course, this could be that XXHE is just letting me better hear the deficiencies still in my AES link and/or DAC....   

The only way to be sure is for you to do an A/B or for me to try Vista....  personally I vote for the former...     In the mean time I'll continue to use Win7!

So Peter.....as a customer, what do you recommend I do to get the best sound quality given I'm a new Win7 user?  Do I go get Vista and install that until you get a release that works as well on Win7 as it does on Vista?  Is there any issue with reinstalling XXHE using the same activation code on Vista?

Thanks.

I've been experimenting with noise isolation and reclocking devices to increase the SQ of my Lynx AES16/BADAC system.  As good as the stock BADAC is I've always felt its SQ was being comprimised by noise and jitter coming into the DAC on the AES/EBU input. 

I started off with an Antelope DA which turns out not to reclock/dejitter the AES pass through, but rather just serves to do noise isolation. Well, there was an immediate improvement in SQ using the DA in between the Lynx AES16 and the BADAC.

Today I took delivery of a Grimm Audio CC1 (Peter - you probably know these guys...).  The CC1 is a master clock and reclocker in one.  Well......this device is quite nice.  Just using the AES reclocker further improved SQ over the DA....not dramatic, but the kind of improvement that once you hear it you can't go back.

But, then using the CC1 to send word clock to the Lynx AES16 card in addition.....further big improvement in SQ.  BIG. 

But the CC1 is just under $3k and the BADAC is $5K (and the AES16 is $700) so I'm going to have to rethink things.  Maybe I'll have to get a NOS1....will it have an analog output stage to directly drive amps?  Clearly the Berkeley guys in order to hit their $5K price point couldn't afford better noise isolation and reclocking technology.

With the CC1 in the audio chain the differences of one player versus another are greatly reduced AND the EMI/RFI noise from the PC is taken out of the equation.  I still prefer XXHE.

In terms of Quad Arc I've come to the conclusion that with the BADAC it doesn't give better SQ and if one does use it you have to use the shorter 2.24 filter and not the 1.24.

I see that Antelope is coming out with their own Zodiak DAC line which will include asynch USB (over 192Khz) and AES and it will include their dejitter/reclocking technology in the DAC together with DC power and a Class A discrete analog output stage.  Should be interesting.  Has anyone heard a MH ULN-8?  There are those that say it outperforms the Model 2.

UPDATE -

After further investigation I decided to take a different tact on the topic of eliminating EMI/RFI noise and jitter induced in the AES/SPDIF ouput of computer music servers which degrades sound quality in the DAC.  Specifically, using an Antelope Isochrone DA AES/SPDIF reclocker in between the computer and the DAC.  The improvement it made in my system was immediate and very significant and I think it is a more comprehensive, simple and cost effective solution than using linear power supplies for the PC and PCI/PCIe cards.

Antelope is a leading provider of clocking solutions for the pro audio world.  Basically, the DA electrically isolates the incoming AES/SPDIF input from the computer, buffers it and reclocks the ouput using a very high quality clock.  This approach strips off incoming electrical noise and reduces jitter.  Since the Lynx AES16 card already has reportedly low jitter the greater impact may be one of just electrical noise isolation.

The sound quality improvements are truly significant.  I'd go so far to say this one component has made the biggest impact of any single component in my system except for when I changed my speakers to a high efficiency two way.  Without the DA in the system it is clear the ENTIRE sonic spectrum is being smeared or blurred.  With the DA the sound is more focused, clear, tonally rich, precise, detailed AND glare is reduced.  I would use the analogy of the difference between a blurred picture versus one in proper focus.

I suspect any good reclocker would give similar results, but I'm not going to try others (such as the Grimm Audio CC1).  The DA is not cheap at $1000, but compared to buying linear power supplies for the PC, PCI expansison chassis, not to mention the hassle, I think its a good deal.

I got mine from Sweetwater Audio which has a good return policy so it was a great risk free way to try.