Hi,


Then in a flash of Zen I swapped the powercable from the PC that sounded fine even on its mobo codec (the ATOM) to the XX music PC and voilá very nice sound again, I dare say even better than before. And this was just a standard cable.



regards, Coen

Until yesterday WASAPI services have been correctly turning off at Unattended. However now WASAPI is staying on all the time regardless of the fact that the "Stop WASAPI Services" button is selected.

I have tried rebooting to full o/s then rebooting to minimised o/s a number of times but without success - WASAPI stays up every time. Any ideas what I can try to fix this?

Paul

I never went back. See my sig ...


Peter

Crazy, especially because I already dare say that from these very few obervations (observators) - and despite it would be statistically illegal to draw conclusions - ... that what people heard before, is confirmed by looking at the graphs now.
(boleary might like to post some)

Coen seems to be off, but maybe he is not at all. So, sound is best at 1333 and latency is quite high. But how does the latency show at 1066 when sound is worse. Higher ? (suring playback I mean)

Coen,

When we would be able to find it back, you would see that at the time Ultra Low Latency Kernel Streaming came about, my PC of the time showed a standard latency of 1000us always (this was Vista and only happened to me). Isn't that 1ms ? that is way more than the few samples @ 384KHz I could achieve back then. So to that regard Latency Checker is a dangerous thing to interpret.

But being all further with everything for quite some years now, the lower latency that Latency Checker shows seems to be related to SQ.
There are also reports around that tell that when XX starts playing, latency drops significantly. So that can happen too.

Thus let's be careful about using this as an absolute measurement and notice it influences itself too (what about the 1ms ClockResolution it depicts ?).

Peter

Ok! I see.  The core speed is the Bus speed x multiplier.
My bus speed is a lot higher than yours: 275 Mhz vs. 95 Mhz. Obviously I am not an expert in this stuff.

regards
Maxi

Hi, Stefano!
Nice to see you've notice the same kind of improvement in the sound. It's seems that we have reach the same spot in different ways.
But I have a doubt, What were your core frequency before the change? I've notice that is higher that one specified in the CPU: 3,89 vs 3,40. Maybe I am wrong but I thing it is overclocked. If so, you must check your temperatures with RealTemp or something like that.
Another difference with my settings are the multiplier: yours is ¡x40! and mine x7,5. I think I'm getting lost

 Maxi 

How did you do this? I was unable to get any significant change in latency by changing the memory frequency. Results below;

824 Mhz; 8-15 at idle, 18-35 with  XX playing
1373 Mhz: 8-15 idle,  12-22 with xx playing
1648 Mhz: 9-13 (very occasional spike to 17-19), 14-20 with xx playing (very occasional spike to 50+)

Are these world records ?
I don't follow this kind of stuff (at least not for a longer time now) but I never saw something like this ...

How to manage the latency?
Regards, Coen

Stefano,

Hoping that I understood the question well :

Whether the Device Buffer Size is set to 128 and Q1 to 2 or 256 and Q1 to 1 makes no difference; the result is the same.

What I would not do though, is setting Q1 to 0 or even lower. The result will be unpredictable and actually this is not made for Kernel Streaming but for WASAPI (I now realize that maybe there should be a protection for using it with KS).

2MB is rather low and the PC must be somewhat faster to cope with it. The allowed 0.2 works sometimes with my own PC, but sometimes not. I think 1MB is reliable for me, but it's a long time ago that I really tested it.
Furthermore I can't compare the situation of 0.9z6 with z7 because so many things changed, but I played with 2MB for many (happy) hours yesterday without any glitch.


Regards,
Peter