XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
May 16, 2024, 10:20:30 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!  
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 [902] 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 ... 1047
13516  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 11, 2009, 12:19:06 pm
Quote
x-Reference D{{}}Galeries}}Jazz}}-GalleryAlbum.GLXX where did it came from ???

Sorry for a late response. This is used by the Gallery mechanism. It is kind of half baked, but you should not worry about the files being there. But don't throw them away.

PS: I use the d button quite often and never ran into such a thing. But maybe I don't use Scandinavian music for it !
What do you select in that Date form ? Date Created ? Date Modified ? Nothing ?
13517  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Errors X1 on: February 11, 2009, 12:13:32 pm
Hi Gerad(A),

In your last post you said you played Unattended. You logfile shows otherwise.
Can you confirm (either) ?

In the mean time, Russ, is that Attened or Unattended with you ?

Thank you both,
Peter
13518  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Another comparison with an ESS Sabre based DAC on: February 11, 2009, 11:50:24 am
Maybe this will sound "commercial", maybe it is just good to know for people in search for a DAC and bump into this ... but here is another kind of "review".

Spread over two days, a session of 15 hours was spent on a comparison between a DAC based on the ESS Sabre, and my own Phasure NOS1.

The ESS Sabre based DAC this time makes use of the original Evaluation Board, though modded to a high(est ?) degree. The bass output therefore (?) is better compared to the Buffalo DAC. Sound character otherwise was the same, to my ears.

The NOS1 was used with SPDIF connection only for more honest comparison, and it was used in NOS mode as well as in OS mode, and either with and without filter.

Software was XXHighEnd, and only 16/44.1 files were used in a normal fashion (not upsampled or anything).

A kind of interesting twist was that various persons came with different presumptions :

a. The owner of the ESS Sabre DAC being there right from the start of the Sabre, working on it in a fashion of creating the best DAC existing. This is visitor A.
b. Visitor B looking for the best DAC in the world (maybe not regardless price Happy) in a most serious fashion I would dedicate to myself only.
c. Me, indeed looking for the best as well, and with a search behind me similar to visitor B, and means similar to vistor A (DIY).
d. Some person D without real interests, apart from the ability to bear the noises day in day out, my wife.

Important to know is that we did not use any music for testing that would put the NOS DAC in the advantage explicitly. In other words, only candle light music was used, much piano, and some toucher of classical here and there.
For those not knowing "my" merits on this one : nothing "square like" music, hence nothing the NOS DAC would do better because of that (remaining squares as they are).

The reason for this kind of music actually was visitor B; He already knew the DAC from visitor A, recognized the virtues, but without being able to describe it, felt "something was missing". You could say that it was the stupid idea to possibly find the missing parts in my own DAC, which is a highly pretentious idea to start with, nobody knowing in advance what would come out. On this matter, I did not know the visitors besides some dozens of emails, and about the seriousness ... they came by airplane.


To get used to my system and how it sounds, we started with the Sabre for some 90 minutes. Where I was behaving the most objective, visitor A got used to his own DAC again, while visitor B again came to the conclusion that technically everything sounded well, but something was missing.
At that stage I knew what that was, but said nothing.

In those cases where objectivity was not needed, I certainly spoke up;
On a side note, I did not know any of the music we listened to.

At one stage, I asked visitor A what instrument was playing. If you followed this topic, I of course internally referred to my notification of the Sabre (in Buffalo appearance) did not do that, and here it was the same. The innocent answer of visitor A was "trumpet. ehh, sax. ehh no ... ?".
Of course this was a kind of mean from me, but was nevertheless related to possibly "something missing", where I experienced that myself and did not recognize it immediately. For the visitors of course this was more difficult because of a lacking reference.

Already at this stage of listening to the Sabre only, I recognized the most strange violins, which were indeed so strange to my ears, that I later (at trying the same track on the NOS1) promised a recognizeable synthesizer at hopping over to the NOS1.

It was really a pure coincidence that my "promise" turned out the most untrue; Instead of a synthesizer a normal violin came out.
Well, with this as the very first thing happening, nobody was really objective anymore, because a violing sounding as an unrecognizeable thing can't be standed. Not once you have the reference. I was ok with it before when the instrument sounded like a combination of a violin with a handsaw and a bag pipe. Of course, the latter was placeboed by the Keltish music (which it was), but still. So, if you hear this back as a normal violin, your brains won't allow to like the non-violin DAC better, no matter for what other reason.
Btw, of course this is similar to what I told a few posts back about Little Feat and the strange noise which just appeared to be a guitar.

In an earlier stage we where kind of always talking about the realism of the music. Somehow it never sounded right, although I must admit we were nitpicks to a high degree. I am not sure whether visitor A would really come up which such messages, but he sure agreed once things were pointed out.
Person D could point out that all was too fuzzy, which was independant of my own stating that things "buzzed" too much. So, I myself recognized the uneven notes on a piano, but since this appeared to be throughout the spectrum, it kind of annoyed throughout. Or at least with my that was so, and apparantly with person D the same. But remember, we (me and D) had a reference.

At a certain stage we at last found a beautiful piano piece of which we could all agree that the Sabre was performing very well on it. So, to be as honest and open as possible, it was my idea to switch the cables for the first time. And to make it a bit pretentious from my side, I had a prediction as detailed as possible on how that piano would change. Remember, that piano (a large wing) that was sounding 100% good to begin with.
I predicted a zillion additional harmonics, a more fresh piano (it sounded late late late night dull), hammers to be heard (they did not at all), and interhamonic "reverbaration", which I later explained by pionting out the 3 strings forming 1 tone on the higher piano notes.

As you have guessed, of course this came out exactly. What I could not have guessed though, is that those harmonics are so much of importance, that the highest notes appeared an octave higher. I never knew that (but never made such extensive comparisons in this area of good music), but at the highest notes the "base tone" seems to be created from harmonics only. They are louder than the actual base tone. In the end I know because I have a wing myself, but it never occurred to me really.

Right. So the nice thing happening (nice for comparing in general) was that while nobody lacked anything on that piano piece, everyone agreed within one second that it was *totally* different. And better. And real.

We were switching a lot, and at some stage a request of visitor B came for a certain track we listened to before over the Sabre, and first we listened to the Sabre again. So, this was the second time;
Try to imagine, me hopping around with cables, your wish is my command at the volumes and everything (all perceivement had to be of a volume as the gentlemen were used to), and as a nice dog I listened again to this track.
Now the track had to be run on the NOS1, and after forfilling my job again, of course the waiting came to listen out that stupid track once more. Life is hard sometimes.
But wait a minute, this time I got something from it, and it sucked me in. With the danger of person D seeing it, I had to wipe my eyes. I saw person B doing the same, and person A had dropped is head down on the bar he was behind. No idea what that meant, but he didn't do it before.

Well, anyway visitor B was done with it. He now knew what he had been missing on the Sabre DAC. Emotion.
I too was confronted with that again (a kind of a hard way to do it), and in the end this too is just the same as what I said before : the ESS Sabre sings like a dead bird. It just is so. No matter all the detail, too many things are - or go wrong at heavy oversampling.


Since everybody now was able to watch out for differences and where they could be, we found many more tracks, particular in the classical regions, where things just did not work at all. I can tell (we all could) that the recordings were the best existing, but on the Sabre violins easily became a flute. Yes, I'm serious. A flute.

Visitor A came to the conclusion that something must be wrong with his DAC. He did not recognize these "errors" from his home. But what visitor A probably forgets is that
a. I asked him before about what instrument he heard through is DAC, with the just innocent answer "don't know", but with the flair of "who actually cares, as long as I like it !"
b. He did not have the reference before.
Besides that I just recognized the Sabre sound.

A little less relevant for the whole exhercition, was that I let the two visitors decide in what mode the NOS1 sounded best to their ears. Or actually is was visitor B wanting to find out, with the notion that visitor B is not NOS minded at all. He knew how I think about that, but never found it relevant for his choice of a DAC. Also visitor B has good theories (confirmed by, say, the books) that oversampling to a certain extend is good.
The unanimous result was NOS/Filterless. No matter I told filterless is wrong and measures wrong, no matter I told I played with filter for the last couple of weeks, filterless came out of it. And indeed, if your measure "the right" things, that may come out of measuring just the same.

As an anecdote, I come near the end with this :

Visitor A, who told that he had some nice hours of good sleep (Happy) woke up with the solution;
His DAC received a 50 Ohm internal SPDIF cable at some last mod, and this really should be 75 Ohms. So, let's change that cable !
We did, and it did not make a difference. Then of course what visitor A did not know, is that I myself have an internal 50 Ohms cable. biglol
Indeed wrong of course, but to my ears that 25 or so cm did not make an audible difference with a 75 Ohms coax, and at this moment I don't own a 75 Ohm very flexible cable which really needs to be flexible at pulling off the cover and the PCB where the SPDIF is connected to is mounted on the cover.
Anyway, I told visitor A to forget about the reference he now has, and most probably back at home things will be allright again. His fine tube amp may mask the anomalies my amps reveil, and I really hope this is just so (for him).

On a last note, and a kind of relevant to not only myself, but also to you listening to my brabbling about "my fine system with the best sound in the world and blahblahblah", I really worship the ears and the paying of attention to everything of vistor B. Not that vistor A is less on this, but visitor B is the critical complaining and "nagging" user. Only the best will do for him;
He told me that in my system he heard one of the best systems he ever heard, but not "the" best. Well, that is enough compliment for me, and I must say that I wasn't all that confident in advance. Remember, I know visitor B as searching for a DAC and all for many years, which may not exactly be avarage. If you are so much into things, you know you merits, and for me this was a kind of scary.

Dear visitors, thank you for a great experience on my side and lending your ears. I'm sure at some stage you will be reading this, and maybe you want to add something, or disagree with things I just said. Don't hesitate to jump in in that case, or do not if you just don't like to  write something here. A small hint for visitor B might be to create another nickname just because of this. In the case you don't want to show who you really are on the internet. Do as you please.

Thanks you both,
Peter
13519  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Errors X1 on: February 09, 2009, 11:27:18 am
Hmm ... that seems strange.
Can you mention the album you are experiencing this with ? and at which tracknumber it stops ?
Furthermore, please mention *all* of your settings at which this happens !

And you wouldn't have a log file of it ? nea
If not, don't make it especially for this (takes too much of your time) but in that case I hope I have that album ...
13520  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Searching for low mp3 bitrate on: February 09, 2009, 05:06:37 am
I don't understand what you mean ... dntknw
13521  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 08, 2009, 09:52:35 pm
Yeah, laugh you highlander.
innocent
13522  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 08, 2009, 09:47:34 pm
Never ending story ... Cool
13523  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 08, 2009, 03:41:16 pm
Ok ok, but there wasn't a log file before ...  Happy
13524  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 08, 2009, 02:44:22 pm
Ok, thanks Johan. From this I will try to solve it.

Bugge Wesseltoft ... is it written like that, or are there again any special characters in it ?
13525  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: X2 And Previous Settings. on: February 08, 2009, 12:38:20 pm
Hmm, that is a superb remark ! never thought of that one ...

This would go right when you first copy in the XXHighEnd1xx.dat file into the new folder ...
13526  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: X2 And Previous Settings. on: February 08, 2009, 12:01:11 pm
Ah, thank you Gerard. Those 6 or 7 times such a popup is just what I wanted. But untick that checkbox of course.

About not reloading the settings ... now I'm not sure. This is about me doing it differently always (I always use the same folder), and I guess it all depends on the folder where things are put in.
In the end this is about letting Windows do it, while I could do it myself. Such a config file then would be in the Data folder you appoint, and then it should work.

So for now I guess answering Yes or No doesn't make a difference (unless you install in an old folder), but at least the errors are not there anymore.

Thanks for letting it know Gerard,
Peter
13527  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 08, 2009, 10:04:52 am
Dave,

At reading back your original post now, I indeed agree you expressed things rather similar to mine. I didn't read it like that the first time. So there must be some truth in it.

Quote
early W versions were causing a hardening in my system.

Only now I realize I have been suffering from the same. I must say that it didn't disturb me much before, but my wife started to complain ("isn't that too loud ?") and a visitor listening before and after the 30,30,0,0 made the remark afterwards that the other day (before the 30,30,0,0 was in) he didn't like it much.
Right now indeed it is so that the upper limit for volume seems to have vanished. Pedal's remark too.

So I guess we have something to focus on. Besides that (in fact more important I think) I could reason out in advance of doing it that it should work out for the better. Now just give us a year more ... Happy
13528  Ultimate Audio Playback / Download Area and Release Notes / XXHighEnd Model 0.9x-2 (solves anomalies at startup of a new version) on: February 08, 2009, 12:26:06 am
  • When a new version has been installed, it always has been the intention to be able to restore the settings from a previous version;

    Right from the beginning this actually never worked. I was found now that this was caused by two MS bugs;
    1. Properties of a control (like a slider) can officially have a minimum setting. At such a restore the value of such a slider is zero at first, and because this is less than a set minimum setting of e.g. one, an error occurred.
    2. When such an error occurred, at a later saving of the settings (while in the mean time al had been reset to good values), nothing would be saved.
    These both together, would cause an answer of "Yes, restore" to have the question to restore the previous settings popup over and over, until a No was answered once. Not exactly the intention of course.
    If all is right, this now has been solved.
    Please let know if you still encounter anomalies in this area.

  • Under Vista, each program not executed before, would imply the question "Can't confirm the publisher, Are you sure to run this software ?" (similar);
    Since quite a few programs are subject to this, and since they would run at "random" occasions including somewhere under the hood, it could even happen that the popup with the question was there without seeing it. Also, such a popup contains a checkbox "Always warn before this file is opened" (similar) and the checkbox is ticked by default. All together not the best thing for a new user not knowing what is happening (but for experienced users a problem evenso).

    Now, after the first running of XXHighEnd after a fresh install, all these programs are run in a dummy fashion, and once this sequence is passed, this should not bother again throughout the use of that version.
    Whether this indeed allows to see all these questions implied, including the possibility to untick that checkbox, is not sure.
    Please let know if this is not the case, hence things seem to hang under the hood, watring for you to answer to the popup concerned.
    The sequence of questions after a new install should just go within tenths of a second at you answering questions in either case. If nothing seems to happen anymore, something is wrong.

  • Since 0.9x-1 it could happen that XXHighEnd started outside the boundaries of the screen.
    Also it could happen that the time slider extended to outside the right boundaries of the form.
    If all is right, both issues are solved.

  • Since a few versions back it could happen that when playback (Attended) was commencing, clicking the Clear button would cause an error. Solved.

  • Also since a few versions back, some of the means for loading tracks into the Playlist Area would not allow to load MP3 files anymore. Besides that, errors would occur attempting so. Solved.

  • Support for AIF files has been added.
    Note that AIF files are the same as AIFF files, but origine (?) from Dos-like 8.3 files.
    In the Library Area AIF files will show as "(AIFF)".

  • Since 0.9x-1 changing the position of the Q1 slider did not incur for an auto-restart of XXEngine3 at Attended (at Unattended it should not -> change and press Play). Solved.

13529  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 07, 2009, 03:11:28 pm
Hi Leif,

The most simple way you see below. Rightclick on your XX icon and choose Properties. Then go to the "compatibilty" tab, and look where the mouse arrow points. In my case this is disabled because I arranged for it at the higher level (UAC).
As long as you keep starting the same XXHighEnd version with the same icon you don't need to do anything. But change either, and you must set that again (tick the checkbox at the mouse arrow).

Note : The fact that you are PC Admin doesn't do anything for Vista.
Peter


Edit : Can't find anything really on that Pure Cycle thing. This is DIY only, right ? And is it for turntables only ?
13530  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Argument OutOfRange Exception error in version 09v+x on: February 07, 2009, 12:05:00 pm
Quote
6 sometimes i get this error (not allway's and not sure if it is in the last track)

Hi Johan,

Of course I see that your #6 comes in between 5 and 7. I also see your doubts as expressed in 6 and 7.

Now, in order to make this more clear, please tell me : is it so that when this error occurs at the first time, it is the same as when you cannot start XXHighEnd anymore ? if yes, the answer to 6 should be "always when the last track has played". The answer to 7 must then be "right after the music stopped".
Can you agree on this ?

Peter
Pages: 1 ... 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 [902] 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 ... 1047
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.376 seconds with 12 queries.