XXHighEnd

Finally no ticks with "sustained" notes. And , here, the mid and high frequences sound less airy, more focused, like a crystal clear glass of water but completely musical sounding. Nice!

... with the notice that by now this is the same as 0.9z-8e for SQ.

Ok, I will have to admit something;
When two evenings back I had the ticks out, it must have been the first time that I had some sort of tear in my eye just because an album had finished.
Right now I'm at the start of Bill Frisel's Gost Town and it sounds like I'm happy that it's just the second track I'm at. What about a crystal clear slow-motion waterfall ? It's eerie.

This two evenings back it was Concierto de Stonehenge from Hatfield's End. I played it numerous times before but day before yesterday it was an all new album with a clarity unheard, details unheard and with skills unheard (Hatfield's end is a Mike Oldfield kind of guy).

Of course I shouldn't admit that this was (and still is) with an SFS of 2. But it really is so that with SFS=2 things come alive and albums "perform" while otherwise you don't know why you selected them in the first place for your "Nice Stuff" gallery. So with my higher SFS of 270 or whatever it was this occurred to me; why did I like this before ? Things just don't work out there. This, while SFS=2 brings super magic.

But I really must add that indeed all must be right. And this was not the case with 0.9z-8a. It really really matters.

Those who think to stick with 0.9z-7 (or even earlier) ... you don't know what you're missing. It's the G.D. best I ever heard myself.
Ok, I hope I am allowed to say this from my own stuff. :evil:

Yes, Bill Frisel is the most special too with this album and his mystique speed guitar riffs. Heck, the man can never have heard this himself I reckon. Hires ? why ??

Ok, done.
Peter

Peter,
this is a real TOP achievement!!
Total black background, which allows the music to dance in the room.
I now become aware that previously the artefacts had more influence on my experience than I was willing to admit. And now we are free (again) to enjoy the artists and their great creations.
Thank you very much........

Cheers
Eric

Hi Peter - the experiences you describe match mine but I just wondered do you have a DVD player connected in your PC? because in my system the DVD has to be completely disconnected or it adds a hard edge to the sound especially noticeable at SFS2. We had exactly the same experience at Mani's and when his DVD was disconnected it really does improve things.

But anyway all is sounding great here and no ticks with Bach organ works any longer.

Thanks for all your hard work as always.

Paul

Paul,

Sometimes it is confusing for you all;
I use two PCs for audio playback : one which is fully loaded with an uncountable number of HDDs and external USB disks (this is what I call my "Audio PC") and one which is made for the job but which I hardly use because I dedicate it to get Windows 8 working hence are working with to get the NOS1 driver going (this is the "XXHighEnd PC" as people can buy it).

The "XXHighEnd PC" still has its DVD connected, and it is the first PC which won't allow for SFS=2. BUT, I never tested music through it anymore since 0.9z-8 - somewhat earlier actually. It may make a difference.

My "Audio PC" is what I always will indirectly refer to, until the moment I definitely swapped to the "XXHighEnd PC" (but then it will be in my sig).

I have talked about it before ... from my Audio PC could be said that it somewhat explicitly goes the other way around; it will mix so many frequencies of "noise" that it should present a smooth "white noise". This is merely determined in aftermath because I use this PC for 3 years now I think, and obviously back then we thought somewhat different about how to get things right. Still that theory of "more noise" is as explicit as the one about "no noise". This is, and I talked about it before, because the "no noise" is not achievable and any of the few remaining noise sources will exhibit about single frequencies which I regard worse than dozens of them mixed which makes it white.

Notice that what it comes down to is randomizing higher jitter (Audio PC) vs having lower jitter with alternating frequencies of it (XXHighEnd PC).

It will be no coincidence that when or while you guys were starting to disconnect devices, I started 0.9z-8; if you closely watch the sequence of happenings this went the other way around. But mind you, in the end we do it together. So anyway (and (as) always) when you come up with something like disconnecting a device for the better, I will try to work this out in the software realm. So with 0.9z-8 the path of addressing the hardware was taken and while the actual "tweaks" are fairly easy for me to try manually, it needed a month of creating general routines and getting them to work in the environment of "protection by the OS" and for which no (internet) examples exist. I only want to say : now these routines work, it only needs to find the tweakable stuff and address it by these routines. Right now a few tweaks are there only, but spades of them can be found and can be implemented the most easy now.
But it's also time to take some breath here.

What I'm actually saying is that maybe I don't *want* to use this potentially better PC (XXHighEnd PC) because all should be possible to apply on my Audio PC just the same. And, it works so far. I must add though that I'm in a sort of pain, knowing the potential of Windows 8 which I can't use because of the NOS1 driver. And if it weren't enough, it is me who must make that going, which first needed finalizing Windows 8 and which you saw happening with 0.9z-8 also.
What about too many things at hand for the one purpose ?

Lastly, *because* of the Windows 8 potential, I myself see no use in working out the XXHighEnd PC for the better sound with Windows 7. I want to do that afterwards. If needed at all (because by then I suppose everybody will be on W8).

I have the hunch that I will have the first sound from the NOS1 through Windows 8 today ...

Peter

A bit following up my story from yesterday, and to me a kind of new phenomenon :

After Bill Frisell I tried one of my favorites subject to improvement (as it seems forever) : Get yer Ya-Ya's out (Stones). Talked about this one many times before and each time I see some real improvement I will try that one too ("all that poorly recorded albums should the heck play !").

As said in the first paragraph : something fairly new occurred to me;

At really the very first notes of it (this is a live album where some speaker announces the Stones at the start of the album) my wife here says "hey, couldn't they remove that curtain they are playing behind ?". Well, nothing really played much at that moment yet, but I readily recognized the far far away "playing" of this album. So, I just know that - it most often sounds "flat as hell". Not always hence not with all XXHighEnd versions, but inherently it is just that flat I guess.

Because I started some discussion like "no it is not that", well into Jumping Jackflash (first track) we were still talking about it, and it became clear that no such thing as a (thick) curtain could be in order. Way too fresh cymbals for that. Btw, way too many cymbal hits as well, which I did not recall from earlier playing of this album.

Somehow the combination of perceiving this far in the back and the freshness of it, did not fit. Judging it precisely, it sure was all far in the back. At the same time though I couldn't help that my mind told me that the drum kit was upfront, which it wasn't because it was as far in the back as everything;

Completely unlike I have heard it ever before, it now was totally clear that someone had dialed the recording volume of the cymbals way too high. It just didn't fit.
Earlier on (this may be 3 years ago by now) I already told that I saw Charlie Watts suddenly being alive while I never saw the guy alive in my life. Now I know why, because now I "saw" that he smashed all his life out of him over the cymbals just for this one recording.

Again earlier on I talked about seeing the guys having a real show on the stage. This, while ever back the album came across as rather saltless, never mind it is music which will last forever (form my younger times).

Whether it was the upfront cymbals or whether it's the so well performing two guitars playing along with well timed touched strings in the finest detail - I could not see that jumping on stage performing anymore. My helicopter view from earlier had changed into the focus on artists creating the harmony of music, and all I could see was a zoomed in picture of two guys holding a plectrum and creating that detailed fine "play" which in the end can make you hallucinate.

Exactly the 100% happened with the Hatfield's End I talked about as well as with Bill Frisell. I used similar words there.

But this is totally new.

For this Stones album I again tried to focus on the jumping on stage performance I encountered earlier - did not work.I regarded the album less good were it for net result; earlier XXHighEnd versions did better on it. But wait, no, there is this low key distortion guitar and *again* I could only envision something like how the guy(s) are able to fine tune a sound so well going along with the lyrics. This is not about a guitar fitting in the play, but it far more is about the proper guitar for the job and the distortion means for the job. And again I saw this one guy with the guitar in front of him swinging the guitar from bottom to top to have it produced its sound (which btw it all about (feedback) interaction with the speaker).

Trying to describe this in one sentence I'd say something like :

While previously I could see a bunch of artists on stage having fun and produce fine music, now I can't see that overview anymore but see the individual efforts of the players with a switching back and forth a 100 times per second in my mind between them and where the elements of ARTISTS create that beautiful music.

And apparently this also applies to the Rolling Stones.


I thought I was finished with this post. But suddenly a big bang occurs to me. Look again at this :


Read back on how I found this not to be true. We did not solve the issue. She sustained in her description and I, from a mere technical point of view, pointed at the feshness of the cymbals which out of everything could not be behind curtains.

But isn't my description as of now not fitting fairly much hers ?

No stage visible ?

Btw, how did I ever select that "Ghost Town" from Bill Frisell yesterday and talked about that one as a first ? I never even played the album before.
I like to see ghosts ?

Peter

Peter, if I use my words to describe things... A lot has happened since 6c... I felt as if some front instruments were not as prominent as they were, but on the other hand, there are more individual details, more tones, more of many things I never heard before ?

The sound is cleaner and smoother than with previous versions, so clean that sometimes it looks like it lacks some weight, but listening carefully this sound has it all. Congratulations once more Peter.
No more ticks except when changing format in the Playlist from 44100/705600 to 96000/768000, then I have to stop and replay the first 96000/768000 track again and the ticks are gone.

Juan

Last night I finally had time to listen more closely. I planned to listen to a new album, but ended up listening to 3 albums, untill late (Psycedellic Pill-Neil Young, Ulf Wakenius-Vagabond, Tonbruket-Dig it to the end).

For me the music has become more engaging, sweeter, yet more detailed. It has become "foot tapping" and "head nodding". Great!

No ticks or cracks.

Thanks Peter!

Stanley

Amazingly transparent, I love it.

Also like it very much!!! And no errors in any way!   :goodjob:

When I asked the DVD question I did have a feeling that the answer was not going to be straightforward. Peter you did not disappoint.

Seriously though the SQ now is sublime. Stay up all night sound.

P

After fiddling around with the settings and ultimately disabeling the RAMdisk playbackdrive the sound is now super musical and devoid of any hardness. All instruments play their tune without disturbing the whole

Me like very much :thankyou:!

regards, Coen

*Much* better now.  Others say it lacks hardness, I say with my little rig it lacks the merest edge of "fuzz" or "sizzle" that was still hanging around with -8c.  (It was there I first heard its real potential, though, with SFS=2).  On "Dream of the Drowned Submariner" (beautiful song) from Mark Knopfler's latest, Privateering, the cymbals, bass, and acoustic guitar are now perfectly in time and complementing each other.  Before it was difficult to tell at low volume whether that was cymbals or sizzle.

Also, the very good Lindsey Geyer cables from the Dragonfly to my amp have now been replaced with better 20 year vintage Omega Mikros (since I got a new pair of Omega Mikros for the main rig), which allows the very welcome clean clear sound to come through, even with things turned down so my wife can sleep.

Hi Peter,

Great job with the 0.9z-8e, the SQ truly is several notch higher than the previous versions. Congratulations on this achievement.

Best regards,

Arvind

I tend to stay with a Win OS I like for a long time because the quality of the various releases is so variable IMHO.  I stayed with Win2000 until Win 7.  So far I've seen nothing in Win 8 to make me want to move, though if better sound quality is possible that is certainly a factor in favor.  I've got no liking at all for what I've experienced of the new UI.  (They were trying out Surface tablets on airport passers-by when my wife and I were traveling this fall.  Pah!)  So I hope you don't leave us W7 users behind too quickly.

Jud, full agreement here. The quoted text of mine indeed looks too harsh. It's just that I myself expect(ed ?) W8 to be the better one. This seems to justify the priority. But mind the "I want to do this aftwards" which by all means tells I WILL do it.
And maybe not all *that* much afterwards ...

Regards ad thanks,
Peter

CLEAN!  Nice black background sound with no treble harshness, or bass bloom, so volume to the max!!  I'm still playing around, but I like what I'm hearing.  Perhaps a little less fullness than before, but other changes in system must be taken into account- Win 8.

I can only join others and say that now sound is simply unbelievable:

1. 3D effect has increased.
2. treble and mids so mild and silky.
3. bass - so tight and clear and deep - no 'clouds' anymore.
4. overall clarity - amazing.

I can finally say that if I add around 800 USD (XX license + USB DAC) to my laptop - I get a High end natural sound out of it which I can be proud off and promote to others!!!

Thanks Peter once again!

Ivo

Lately I was using the USB Buffer size in the Phasure Control Panel at 16ms and today I returned to 4ms that I was using with the 0.9z-7 versions, seeing also that Peter returned to use it. For me the 16ms is so far the best setting with 0.9z-8e as it has the best balance between clarity and body, the voices seem to be warmer, with more presence and the notes some way richer with more nuances. Subtle differences as always but noticeable.
I´d like know about some others opinion about this difference in SQ using 4ms or 16ms  in the USB Buffer Size.

Juan

Hi Juan,

Please note that I am more of a "transient" guy than a "tone colour" one. I have less problems with horn colouration than with a slow and undynamic sound.

When Peter had 16ms in his signature I tried it, but found it rounding-off the music, sounding a little odd and distant to me.

Above is the very same reason why I prefer 10ms clock res over 15ms. I am still trying to balance tone and dynamics with SFS and Q1. Both spice up the sound at lower values bringing it alive while loosing warmth. This can get too much, even for me!

regards, Coen

Thanks Coen, now I´m trying again with 4ms and to tell you the truth I´m not sure which setting I find making a more real sound. It is hard to put all those settings together in a "perfect" way and besides all of us have different systems in a way or another making comparisons difficult.
I don´t like either a colored sound and what I look for is the sound that seems to me closer to the real thing, not the one that please me more, of course the real thing is only in my imagination (contradictory?) but this is what the game is about for me.

4ms sounds great also, maybe the use of one or the other setting (16ms) depends also on the recording.

Best regards,
Juan

I think that this experiment may be interesting if real sound is the goal:

Try to record your own singing and playing something using a good stereo recorder that does it right into WAV file. Then play this file back on your system using different tweaks while you find the real ones that do not color the sound.

I also agree that it very much depends on a recordings, but at least you can try this way to find something. Will try someday and then post as I also like to hear as close to real as possible.

Ivo

I would like to share some experience I have with v8e.

With the settings below (i will paste them in an txt attatchment) I enjoy a fabulous musicality. I mean with every piece I throw at xxhe the music seems to be exactly right. The right dynamics, the right timing, the right flow,the music holds my attention easily for an entire album and with the right material I get shivers in the neck. Sometimes the musical rightness is pure magic. Oh, and all this bliss is regardless of genre.

Arrived at audionirwana? Well, not yet. Musically it is on par, but tonally it is a bit undercooled and sometimes instruments or voices are a little vague. I really wish for some extra warmth and solidity to obtain perfection.

I have found while playing with the settings in search of better tonality, that this magic is very fragile. Some setting do bring extra warmth (like playing unattended, with ram-disk or PA+) but with all changes the superb musicallity is destroyed. Some settings are worse than others, but all make the music less interesting and harder to connect to (more "good sound" like).

A record where this is immediately apparent for me is the "Horwitz at home" recoding. With the good settings you want to listen to the musical story that the master tries to tell with his piano or just enjoy the flow of music. One setting off and you are listening to a poorly organised undynamic pling plong, that makes you want to skip the track or do something else. Fyi: thats what I usually experience with most tracks of this recording.

Knowing that Peter allways has new tricks in his sleeve, i am a little reluctant to search in the rest of the chain. For now I keep searching within the settings and let you know if I succeed. Hints and tips are allways welcome!

Regards, Coen

Just change the footers of the NOS1. Doesn't matter with what. This is just for you to notice that this is this other dimension which is not allowed to skip ...


And Coen, is your sig on par now ? I don't think so.
Is it true that you have PA Off ?

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Foorters have allready been replaced by three woorden doorknobs. Sig is on par. I do not use PA (when I did I preferred + over -) and all xt tweaks are conform initial pc settings.

I can do checks and experiments later.

Regards, Coen

Hey Coen,

I wasn't talking about replacing the temporay ones, but just that they do matter more than the whole of XX. Change that wood by rubber or something and have your warmth. Bet ?
One problem : it wil even be more "vague" as per your own description.
Anyway it's key.

Peter


PS: And your "vague" is distortion because of no PA in use. A bit more tough to bet on, but I'd dare a krate of beer. :)

Ok,

FYI: The dark magic-cubes have been removed from the room allready. I will experiment with some other footers and PA tonight.

Regards, Coen

Hi,

For starters I just removed the wooden footers and started a listening session.

The vagueness seems to be moved to another part of the frequency spectrum. Also, as expected, there is also less focus to the sound. Engaging PA in both + and - version reveals that again "something" is lost in that musical quality. The minus setting is very clean, but seems to "compress" or "thicken" the music ever so slightly. OTOH the plus setting adds a little liveliness and colour but at the expense of apparent details.

In my -still- preferred non-PA setting the music sounds more free, able to breathe more. It also seems louder. Unfortunately the feet make no difference to this quality.

Before moving on to new feet, I noticed that the XT-Tweaks "balanced load" setting was 98, much higher than I remember after installing 8a. I have not been consiously fiddling around with the XT tweaks (to keep a reference for the PC across XX versions) so this was some kind of accidental setting. After some tooltip reading I took the plunge to get a grasp of their effect on Sq (and CPU temp).

Now it got very interesting. Reducing the "balanced load" had a very profound effect on the sound. In fact the musical magic appears to happen only at a setting of 90 and higher, regardless of the other xt tweaks -so far-. As a bonus a setting of 90 sounds a little more fleshed out than the former 98.

Well, though this makes a nice start, it complicates finding an optimal solution with all possible interactions :(.

Wrt PA, I cannot reproduce a lower distortion and better percieved sound. Maybe the normal XX 8e distortions work out for the better in my odd system.

regards, Coen

Thank you for the feedback Coen.

I'll let the initial windows 8 exitement wear some time, so windows 7 for me the coming times.

I have however no real progress in the settings: I keep coming back to the initial ones.
I got nervous this night when I thought they were all set but SQ was downright horrible (something like a worn record scratchy, thin, unpleasant). It turned out that I had left the "time performance index" at "optimal" yesterday. So thats another setting that does not work out here.

Well maybe i have allready found all there is in this setup with 08e, yet sq is actually excellent so it was ambitious to get more out of it in the first place.

Thanks for thinking along,

regards, Coen

Hey Coen,

Now I am not sure whether W8 was horrible to you, or W7 with some "wrong" settings. The latter, yes ?

Peter

I only have w7 here, so no opinion between about w8!

In due time I will move on with Windows.

Regards, Coen