XXHighEnd

FRESHNESS! Is the first word to come to my poor english speaking mind after listening some well known tracks.

¿Placebo? Maybe. It would not be the first time. :)

BTW Peter, yes, I was shocked with the PA question but to be honest, I don't mind at all because my little gain issue.

Best regards,

Maxi

Second impression EVEN better: orchestral tutti sounds much less (or not) congested and very easy flowing. Besides that, the "weigth" I was missing is there again, like in W8 but in a different and better fashion.

Maxi

I still can't get into minimized... it seems to go all through but at the end it comes up with a message that I should contact Phasure because it can't boot into minimized?

I see "wait", then a question about restore and then about continue and then the screen truns dark and then the message pops up that it can't!!!!

It looks similar to a situation where things were XX is not activated but it is (or isn't it activated properly afterall?).

Blehhh...updates!!! YAK

I am out for a while, not in the mood to stay behind a PC

Bert,


You are not activated properly.

Peter

I had the same error as Bert and Maxi last night.  Maxi apparently is properly activated, Bert apparently isn't.  I'd like to be as sure as I can that, given -3 *looked* to me as if it was properly activated (red font on the title bar, red border for cover art), -3a is also.

With that as prologue, the following questions:

- Should I just unzip -3a over -3 in the same folder?

- If I do unzip -3a over -3, should I go ahead and activate -3a, or would it already be activated?

Jud,

You can just unzip 8-3a over 8-3. As a matter of fact, only XXHighEnd.exe has been changed in 8-3a.

Peter

I am now...  :)

Bert

First reaction of my daughter of 12, wow dad this is much better! Yes, it is a fresh, open and clear sound. Really good.

regards, Arjan

Hi Peter,

the music sounds silky, relaxed and there is additional room between the instruments and voices. I heard some middle age music played on original instruments with poor harmonics combined with a chorus of mostly chest voices -  the panorama, the staggering and details are really amazing  :)

Georg

Sparkles? Fireworks!
Just comparing apples to oranges here again but the oranges sound so strange! Bigger then Live, thundering Bass from hell, sparkling highs from heaven! Unbelievable if this is real!
Hope tommorow still sounds this way because now it's really bedtime. ;)

I must go to bed too but I can't stop listening. This is truly addic....ti....ve....ZZZZZZZ :sleeping:

Really agree with the above...  :)

And so stable and fast. Even with this low processor settings.

Fun!!!!!

FYI (and maybe it helps for the better for others as well) :

I have been A-B-ing for over 5 hours last night with volume up to the pain level - just to sort out better what best settings are, and this is what I changed (remember, this is through the NOS1) :

Q1 = 30, xQ1 = 10 (was 14/1), Time Performance Index = Optimal.
Further see sig.

What I tried to do was getting some "nastyness" out of the way, which (obviously) will exhibit more when playing really loud (which was 100dBSPL all the time yesterday).
Also notice that this has become more critical when not using Phase Alignment because all is more to the point (since 0.9z-8-3). I used Black Sabbath's Paranoid for it which tends to show this more nastyness when playing louder always, and I think I got it very well tamed by these changes; The higher buffer settings could not take out all of it, and the last thing I did was bringing back the Time Performance Index to Optimal. That really did the trick.

And FWIW :
Thinking about the reason that I and maybe a few others set the Time Performance Index to "Not the best" - which was about more depth ... I suddenly noticed that the lower SFS settings (I tried 1.5 and 2) take out some "phase-focused" sound. So, sounds which may emerge anywhere in the room do not so (much) with the lower SFS.


After I was satisfied with the settings as applied to "not the best sounding albums", I played one of which I knew it is OK, and next I envisioned myself at a house party (the XTC ones I mean) with the super slamming sound not hurting any ear at the 100dBSPL level. But the power coming from it ? wow.

Can people agree with trhis ? Disagree is also fine !
Peter

Right now I am listening with my old setting SFS=1.5 Q=10,0,0,0 Q1f=1 and

WOW !!!!!!!

does it sound good. The bass is fantastic and I thought it was good before.

Just now I cannot bring myself to play around with settings but I will later.

And - no stops ha ha - this is looking very promising indeed.

And also on top of that a computer with a built in heater to heat the room on these cold mornings.

Paul

While I can't do anything for the moment (girlfriend still sleeping), I was wondering about one thing...

I always liked HF. The more presence of them, the more satisfied I was. But with digital glare and "edgy" sounds, all depends on the music style more than anything else.

You mention Black Sabbath... I like the "fuzz" (guitar) a lot. With more HF, I feel I can hear that "sizzling" noise a lot more than when it is (maybe not the right word) "tamed" or should I say "controlled". And I like that sizzling noise that comes from the guitar. This raises the notion of "neutrality" against "personal taste"... A part of me like the fact that there are no more edgy sound, but another part misses that prominent sizzling sound...

And since my hearing is not what it was, sometimes I would like to have a little more HF energy - a hard to loose habit I developped a long time ago...

Alain

In in four words  ...WTF happned !  :)

Its a quantum leap forwards...

I simply didnt realise I was listening to so much "loudnes" (in the not nice sense) before. Normal loud play for my system was at -30db before this morning, with 09-z03a l'v been playing at -22 db at times!! and the sound is superb !

Settings so far have been similar to 09-z82, but I'v just pluged in Peters settings for a listen. I had meant to spend half an hour listening this morning but its now 1:20pm and I'm still rivitted, enjoying a real seventies fest of music

A superb landmark release Peter, many, many thanks,

Nick.

Alain,

I think it all can easily be brought down to the highs not allowing to hurt earlier than sheer SPL in general. So, whatever the sizzle or snizzle or snoops you like for personal taste are there, and they do not hurt when playing really loud, it is good and maybe even reality (read : dialling out the sizzle would be the wrong thing).

All in other words : All we may like for freshness or perceived sparkle etc. etc., is not the real thing when it starts to hurt at the real high levels.

It is all not so easy;
Take Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I am not sure anymore, but I think that 0.9z-6 showed this as a way way underweighed album. There's just no bass in it with that version (and maybe a few earlier as well). However, this is with the NOS1 which is just so neutral that no color of any sort is added. This means that if the player doesn't exhibit the bass (don't ask me how that happens as a phenomenon), well, the sound is just too lean. And notice that this can be a quick observation from anyone new to the NOS1 ("I want more bass !"). But all what happens is that the front-end ain't right (XXHighEnd).

The complexity emerges when we see that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath can exhibit this extreme lean sound while any other album you own doesn't do that. Btw, other examples of this are Heaven17 and Uriah Heep - Live. Or Frankie goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome. Uriah Heep works well now for a longer time and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath the same. But at least the latter - with which I started out yesterday - now sounds as you expect from it, that fat Sabbath sound (don't look at the guitar especially when it's played, because you will be disappointed when you see the ease of the slow moving (half :)) fingers.

I don't know what it is that causes some albums to behave like this while nothing is noticed from others but it must be about the highs which overwhelm the bass and when this is played loud to get something of the bass, your ears will be on fire first. And so in general : play very loud, and when the highs are hurting, it is not right.

Btw, because of the slam which now is there, I again explicitly looked in each corner of the room - even with the SPL meter, but I can find no single spur of higher SPL in any corner anywhere. And strangely enough, even less so than before (with more low output obviously). This is how I can easily play at 100dBSPL without *the bass* hurting (no standing waves anywhere). All stays as in-tact and loose and separated as with normal volume levels.

Yea, I think I am fairly happy with this version and my settings.
Peter

Btw ... I think I already announced pre-0.9z-8-3 that the SFS doesn't matter so much anymore. So, besides the more holographic sound (I think) at the higher settings, the detail remains at the higher settings (my 120 and I never tried higher). This seems to be a good thing (sort of : one dial less).

If I am right at all on this.

If I still had  a preamp, the volume would be set to "11" al la Spinal Tap  :)

One more thing about bass/highs and whatever happens ...

I once bought a few early Beastie Boys (never mind my taste) while on vacation, and played it in the rental car. Sounded the most fat and super. Try it on 0.9z-8-3 (or earlier, doesn't matter). They just forgot to bring along the bass player.
And no, I didn't turn up the bass of the car radio.
So, through the normal home stereo there is no single spur of bass (and totally unlistenable for that).

How ? I don't know.
Peter

Thanks a lot Peter, it really helps me to have a better grasp of things. While I was dreaming about hi-fi a long time ago, there are many notions that I yeat have to better understand.

When I first changed whatever speakers I had for the Tannoy, I was surprised to note important differences in the LF depending on the recording and I did not know what to make of it. With the different XXHE versions, these differences lessen, so an important part of it was about standing waves (I think).

I also guess that with components of less neutrality, HF are still too prominent and create a false illusion of details, because when I listen more carefully to the voices, there is digital glare.

I should have made up my mind about this, but like many other things in life, to be explained (like you did) finally triggers a better understanding.

Regards,

Alain
PS: I wrote about this before, but anyway: Black Sabbath (Master of Reality) "Sweet Leaf" has a lot more "sparkle" with the Sanctuary Label than the Warner version. When I listen to it (Sanctuary version), the sound is so much more engaging !

For the first time I find that bigger SFS & Q settings (I tried your settings Peter) are better - but only slightly I would say. For sure they are not so important any more.

This is brilliant SQ as Nick said WTF happened? wow does this sound good. Also I do not have to frig around with settings and performance seems to be rock solid NO STOPS HOORAY.

I just turned MOBO USB off and for the first time I am not sure there is any difference in SQ - before there has always been a big difference.

Fantastic.

Brilliant work Peter - but where do you go from here? every time I think you have achieved the holy grail you go and improve things again.

A very happy bunny

Paul

9Z8-3a here seems a bit of a step backwards. Vocals have a subtle glare (less natural sounding) that harken back to pre Phase Alignment days. But turning PA on with 3a doesn't entirely "cure" the problem, so it can't just be about turning PA on and off. My listening was with Peter's most recent 3a settings. So what sounds best here: 9Z8e. Though I last posted that 9Z8-2 is superior to 8e, that was "achieved" through what became ridiculously loud volume levels. What Cohen last said about 8e and there being something so right, regardless of faults, continues to be true here.

Now for something really different: After playing 8-3a in ultimate X-Tweaks mode, close XX and start 8e. Go into settings and ignore the errors that proper values can't be determined and set SFS to 1 and Q1 to 7 (all other settings were as in my signature below) and hit play. What you get, I think, is the Ultimate X-Tweaks setting with the usual 8e PA settings. ..... a very interesting silky smooth, turn up the volume presentation. Not sure if it's "better" but it sure is interesting.

Ha, nice find Brian. To avoid the errors in 8e rename the NoXtweaks.tss to *.tst. Or is this file not present in 8e ? Then this doesn't work (and putting it there is useless).

Still I would say that when you set all the same in 8-3a as in 8e (and Off for that which doesn't exist in 8e) it should sound the same. If not it is unintentional.

Peter

I have just realised that my DVD burner is still connected after rebuilding my system. Why did I not realise? - simply because it just does not seem to affect SQ any longer.

Mmmmm what is going on? What have you done Peter? all the things that had a major affect on SQ before do not seem to have a significant effect any longer. Of course I reserve the right to change my opinion (when I have listened more) but for sure as of now 09-8-3a seems rock solid and very little seems to affect its ability to produce brilliant SQ.

And no stops ha ha - brilliant!!!!

Hey Nick - could this be a threat to your reputation as a "Tweaker in Chief"?

Cheers

Paul

First, -3a is for me definitely better than -2.  It is not so much an amazing objective leap (because I liked the sound I was finally able to get after some tweaking with -2), as it is the more subjective type of thing I experience when it's all really right: I want to hear this track, then that one, then the next and the next, etc.

It did take me just a little tweaking to get there, by playing with the SFS and Q settings, which you'll see in the sig.  It may indeed be true these (SFS in particular) don't change the sound as much as before, yet I found SFS=2 did not give the music quite enough "body," and 2.2 was just the very slightest bit too controlled.  Similarly, neither Q=16 nor Q=18 was exactly right, but Q=17 with a factor of 2 and SFS=2.1 was about as close to perfect as I can imagine hearing with XXHE at the moment: yes, accurate, but not just that - all the joy is there, too.

Listening to several tracks from Rickie Lee Jones' "Flying Cowboys," -2 gives the right high extension on her voice, cymbals, etc., but -3a does that and also provides more upper midrange body and expressiveness, as well as giving the right rasp and growl to the saxophone.  -3a also gets the subtle Doppler of the toms on "Love Is Gonna Bring Us Back Alive" just right, making me wanna get up and boogie.

Ah, and also, probably because Phase Alignment is off, I can play as loud as I like (or as loud as I've tried, anyway, Dragonfly volume at 50, XXHE at 0 attenuation) without tripping my amp's protective circuitry.

Enjoying my music a lot,

Jud

Gosh hardly got used to -2 and now we have -3a. I had no problems running XT Ultimate. Sound a further refinement over -2 at this point, still listening.

Robert

OK, there must be something wrong with my setup. I have XTweaks set to 'Ultimate' but my liquid cooler heatsinks stay totally cool to the touch. I'm assuming activation worked OK - I'm getting the red wallpaper border.

The sound is very nice, but SFS settings still make a massive difference here.

Any thoughts?

Mani.

Mani - actually I have to take that back because now that I have been running a while my cooling tower is cooler than before it is cool to the touch.

Also I take back my comment about the DVD player it does have to be disconnected.

Will play further with SFS settings.

Paul

My cooling tower is about the same as always, slightly warm; however, my best indicator of the effect of ultimate x-tweaks is the speed of the PC- particularly stopping and starting a new track. Faster than ever before.

More with SFS settings - certainly my previous settings of SFS=1.5 & Q=10 Qf=1 are not now the best. Bigger settings seems slightly more relaxed with more "air" but the settings generally now seem to have much less effect. Previously the lower latency settings made the sound clearer, sharper but now that aspect does not seem to change with SFS & Q settings. I am running with SFS=50 Q1=20 just now but to be honest I cannot hear much difference if I increase latency further so I have not been bothered to "play" further.

I also agree with Boleary XX is much faster in fact now I hardly notice that the bigger latency settings are slowing response at all (that does not seem entirely logical because I would have thought the bigger buffer sizes would dictate the response).

And that bass response and quality - mmmmmmm.

Great stuff - XX is growing up fast.

Cheers

Paul

X tweak ultimate , minimized os:

 user did notice some "not liking" by software regarding a possible set of Processor Appointment ( probably going to ... unattended ) causing  reboots ;

Mobo set to " varying cpu speed in OS " is not liked by software , causing reboots going in unattended  . Software prefer Mobo to be
 " auto " in that regard .

Beside this 2 points , Cpuz says that when all is satisfied and software plays in unattended + ultimate , the cpu freq remains half of what is set .And of course the heat sink + fan say exactly the same .

In user case freq is 1600 Mhz ( set  to 3200 Mhz )


stefano

Also a reboot did occur automaticly after 30 minutes or so of listening in unattended .

EDIT:
OK cpuz is not to be considered . CPU temp says 3,8 Giga Hz( 6,7watts... :-) ) . The HeatSink is BIG (Core 0,1,2,3 : 25°,22°23°26° C )

Thanks

s

I've just noticed that this thread sits under the 'Your Thoughts About Sound Quality' section, so here are a few preliminary thoughts:

Super, super smooth sound and subjectively deeper lows. I can understand why people can listen to this at high volumes for prolonged periods.

However here, Phase Alignment still sounds more 'real'. But I'd say without PA, the sound is almost more pleasant to listen to.

So, no concrete conclusions as yet...

Mani.

I like this version , because I can listen to it to low levels .

On the other hand , when something isn't right :

a) the tendency is to turn up the volume
b) after that a),  shut off .

. So I like 0.9z8-3a

Wow, Peter, what an achievement. Once again! And at such a high pace (three-four big steps in only 3 months time). Where is this gonna end?  :thankyou:

In my system I have the following effects: much more definition, much more quitness, more depth and more 'musicality' (more caught by the emotions in the music) and it sounds more naturual/easy going. I love the romantic piano concertos and they sound so beautiful.. :)

One point is a bit a step back (in my system): the highs tend to be a bit sharp again. Albums from Katie Melua and Stabat Mater from Jenkins you clearly hear the "ss's" at the start of the singing. This was gone for a long time but now it is back. Anybody any idea how to soften it?

Hein

I perceive here also more definition, more quietness, more depth and a more relaxed and pleasant SQ.

On the other hand I noticed a bit more "ssss" (f.i. Neil Young's Greendale).

And I'm not sure, but I think I miss something that was there in 8-2 and that might be related to PA, some sort of subtle overtones perhaps that make the sound "real".

But I need to listen some more to be sure.

Stanley

For those who are in doubt about s'es, maybe try change the Time Performance Index ?

On that subject Peter; in your sig you show "*Ultimate* / Time Performance Index : *Optimal*"

... But in your release notes you're recommending: "not the best"

What is your current thinking on this?

Thanks,

Geoff

Hi Geoff,

It is in this topic somewhere (post from me). I think from yesterday.

Regards,

Peter

Ok, I've spotted it now. Thanks. I think it would be a good idea to add the Peak Extend setting to your sig as well. At various times, I've seen this recommended to be off and other times on. It's set to on out of the box, I know.

Geoff

Hey Geoff, thanks. I missed peak Extension - I guess because it's not meant to be a general SQ setting (but it is by some long time now).

Regards,
Peter

No problem in my case with temperature, the cpu is working at 99,7% of the normal frequency, if I remember well. The six cores are at 30ºC/33ºC with a very short maximum peak at 42ºC in some of the cores (tested with Real Temp. Room temperature 23ºC). I even took off the cpu fan and I´m using just two of the three big fans that are at the bottom of my case, they are running at minimum speed, +/-950 rpm. No fan filters either (that makes 3ºC/3,5ºC less). For the ones that have my same pc case I´d recommend to try this configuration. You can take a look to the link in my signature to see my pc case that have the advantage of a different orientation of the motherboard with the cpu cooler receiving directly the air that comes from the bottom fans.

Talking about settings I followed Peter recommendations, XTweaks : Ultimate, etc. and I´ve found interesting the setting of "Time performance Index" because the sound changes quite dramatically, at least in my system. What seems to be a bigger sound stage and a smoother sound with "Time Performance Index" set at "Not the best" is in IMHO just a misplacement of the sound and it produces a fake sense of smoothness. With "Optimal" the sound is more pinpointed, firmer and better placed than without it. The smoothness gotten, or the lack of it (however it should be named) is the one produced naturally by the instruments and the voices placed as they should be. In other words, nothing is perfect but with "Time Performance Index" set at "Optimal" the sound is less artificial, more real.

Great sound!, (as always).

Juan

I also found the difference between, "not the best" and "optimal" to be dramatic. So I'm glad you posted that Juan.

I went backwards and forwards between the two over the last few days and finally agree that "optimal" is the preferred setting.

Compared to "not the best" resolution seems "hyper-real" with optimal.  More interesting, more involving.

In my main system with the NOS1 "not the best" could be a useful setting when listening at low to moderate levels. The sound appeared warmer and the bass seemed to be boosted, making listening at those levels more enjoyable.

If I started at higher than moderate levels with "not the best", I tended to want to turn it down. Conversely if I started at moderate or lower levels with the "optimal" setting I tended to go in the opposite direction and crank it up to realistic levels.

"Not the best" then for me is actually "the best" when I'm forced to listen at low levels.

I imagine it will also be useful for edgier recordings where, for example, sibilance appears exagerated on female vocals.

Geoff

PS: I need to change my sig. Settings are currently the same as Peter's

Hi Geoff,

I agree with you about the easier listening with "not the best" setting but, as I said, I find the sound not as well placed as it is with "Optimal". It is interesting also the changes in SQ that are related with volume level because there are changes again in the smoothness or the placement of voices and instruments, e.g. I find the perfect sound in my system at -30db while at -28db the voices are displaced a bit more in front and turn to be a little aggressive. It could be also related with the room acoustics that can deal well at certain volumes and not so well at higher levels.

All in all, what I can say is that this version is the best so far for my taste and in my system. The bass is big but firm and remains under control, the sound stage is deep and wide and the voices are clear and have a rare sense of humanity, I mean, they seem to come from a real human body. Very thrilling indeed.

Best regards,
Juan

Last night I set the 8-3a x-tweak settings, as well as all other settings, to be identical to my 8-d settings below. 8-3a had a better low end feel but vocals remain less transparent and natural sounding. Here, 8-d (or e) continues to sound so "right" that at times it's as though the music is happening in slow motion-- remember the feeling when Bill Frisel was played on 8e? That's the feeling I mean. Perhaps I've become addicted to a very particular sound?

Roll another one, just like the other one....... :)

Brian,
Have you tried with reverse IPhase setting? I tell you because without PA it seems to play a role again, at least in my case.

Maxi

Thanks Maxi, I reversed the IPhase setting and had a huge improvement in the sound--much smoother in the high frequencies. I was finally able to listen to 8-3a for more than five minutes. This seems weird to me because before PA days I never reversed polarity with the IPhase button. Will need more listening  before having an opinion on whether it's better than 8-d.

Glad to hear it. Before the PA days I used to try reverse IPhase when I felt that the sound was not as good as it was expected. With certain recordings there were no noticeable differences but with some others the difference was nigth and day. I think that PA reduced the effect in some way and made me stop using it. At the end all this stuff is phase related.

Maxi

Yep, couldn't agree more.

Boleary
What this suggests to me is that there is a high chance that your favourite "test" recordings may be in that category because they all have the same absolute phase? Perhaps, it should encourage you to experiment with recordings you don't like quite so much on the reverse XXHE phase setting, and see if you now like the reproduction better?
Frank

This is not about recordings and reversed Absolute Phase; It is just like the old days (ask Dave (SeVeReD)) ...
At a certain level of  - call it preciseness, things tend to flip.

By now I can explain it by telling that nothing in the world guarantees that a first highest "pulse" is the positive one when positive was meant. Also it will be different for frequency ranges. All we can tell is that when positive is meant, the average of the voltage will be (more) positive. In the far end you may be able to hear that. But the attacks are more important I think, and these (which pulse is the highest, positive or negative for a frequency) may change per setting.

This was far to brief, but maybe you get the idea.

Peter

Though use of the IPhase button helped dramatically to smooth the high frequencies here, 8-3a just sounds more digital on my system than 8-d. If I turn on PA in 8-3a and change settings to my 8-d settings, the sound is good but not as wide open and natural sounding as 8-d. The natural sound of 8-d or e is particularly noticeable with female voices. Another advantage of 8-d here is that I don't have to turn iPhase on or off depending on the track, it all just sounds good when PA is engaged.

Just my impressions on my system and I am certainly not complaining cause the sound here in my man-cave is, to these ears, nothing short of stunning!

Hi Guys,

After extensive experimenting with 0.9z-8-3a, in my set up the best SQ is with PA on, which means no XTweaks. Far more musical, soft & with the best soundstage. The speakers just seem to become invisible.

Best regards,

Arvind

I tend to prefer 3a

Stanley

Hey Stanley - Do you have pistons under your speakers ?
And what's that in the middle of the floor ? Doctor-gear ?

But this picture really makes me smile !

Peter

Arvind,

Maybe I don't know myself now, but how is XTweaks related to Phase Alignment ? I don't think it is ...

Regards,
Peter

What about this setting (W7 / NOS1) :

All what's in my sig, except for Q1=30 and xQ1=10 and next the most important :

Core Appointment Scheme = Nothing plus Clock Resolution = 0.5.
This latter combination might do tricks.

Try this on music of which your think it sounds the most (nice and undistorted !) fresh and dynamic but with the freshness in high resolution "more square" (could be synths).

Now let me know what you perceive for changes ...

Peter

Haha, no, just a door stop from the Lidl.

Yes, my reading glasses  :rules:

Hi Peter,

I don't know if PA & XTweaks are anyway related. The release notes mentions switch off PA. So conversely when I activated PA, I switched of XTweaks. I just assumed this to be the correct thing to do. Are you implying that both features can be simultaneously activated?

Let me try your suggested settings & hear if it is as good as PA on.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,

The Release Notes only suggest the consistent combination to use for best SQ and only subjective to my own listening and idea. That's all !
And the most important part of that is that I now can use no PA for the better. That this goes along with XTweaks Ultimate should not confuse you by thinking that XTweaks are not possible or allowed with PA in use.
And also the other way around : Do not use XTweaks Ultimate and try without PA is a kind of useless, because it would imply the situation from earlier versions, where we about all choose to use PA (including me).

I hope it is clear now !
Peter

Hi Peter,

The above suggested settings brings the SQ very close to PA on, however it's still a bit harsh & the vocals come a step forward.

To conclude I find that PA on, XTweaks off is number one, followed closely with the above suggested settings.

Best regards,

Arvind

Peter, regarding your latest suggestion, I agree with Arvind's findings concerning PA off. To me, in my system, the more forward vocals are accompanied by a subtle harshness that takes me back to pre PA days.

Arvind, have you compared 8-3a and 8e? It should be easy for you to try since you don't have xtweaks on in 8-3a--you won't need to do any reboots.  However, you will have to open and then close 8e and then reopen it to get the autohotkeys working correctly. Ignore any reboot message that might come up in the process of opening and then closing 8e.

Just wondering what your impression of this comparison might be cause you seem to be the only other person to report that 8-3a has a bit of harshness with PA off. Here, with 8e, having both xtweaks and PA engaged sounds best.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems that in the past there was pretty much agreement about the SQ with each new development in XXHighend. Now though, it seems we may have reached a place where the software is generally so good that  settings, and perhaps even versions, are now more system dependent. There is the subjective element too, but  I think that plays only a small part, if any, in the current split of opinion regarding "what sounds best," because for so long consistent consensus seemed to be the rule.

Just my 2 cents.... :)

Well, Boleary I have to confess that I experienced some harshness that I was not sure was caused by XXHE. Especially this happened when Adele sings a bit higher and louder. I was thinking it might be the recording but am not sure and not really able to test it now.
It's a shrillness that's realy unlistenable and I suspect it's only one particular frequency range that has this distortionproblem. Maybe somewhere around 2 to 5 kHz?
I guess everyone has Adele? and can test this?

Based on Boleary & Arvinds findings and Peter's suggestion I did a test this evening. I tried the following:

1) Ultimate xtweaks - pa off - 15ms - core scheme 3
2) Ultimate xtweaks - pa off - 0.5ms - no core scheme
3) Ultimate xtweaks - pa on (strenght 1) - 15ms - scheme 3

In my system and my ears 3) sounds the best, then 2) and finally 1. But: it is close, very close sometimes (especially 2 and 3)
I didn't a test with ultimate off since I'm loosing this 'easy-going' and part of the emotion in the music. Note it sounds beautiful but with ultimate on is becomes more involving.
Differences I notice: in 3, less (subtle) harshness; but I like that voices come more forward like Boleary noticed. And with 2 and 3 the sound is more open compared to 1.

Hope this helps and/or gives other ideas. :dntknw:

Adele is a pain and exactly for the reasons you told, Gerard.

But if course this is head in the sand, and it actually should be a good measure. So, I always say "nothing is caused by the recording". Maybe if you can't get it right in 10 years it is. But we all know how super-many "recordings" improved over time, and maybe one day Adele will do too.

Peter

Hi Boleary,

8-3a (XTweaks off) & 8g are very much the same. I just love the SQ, so musical, soft & the soundstage is fantastic.

Best regards,

Arvind

Thanks Arvind, am assuming you meant 8e when you said 8g. For me 8-3a sounds more rolled off or less open in the high end than 8e. And I have to agree with Peter and Gerard about Adele. Her voice seems to overwhelm the mic when she goes from 0 to 60. For me a better test of how software , etc, deals with the higher frequencies is the acoustic version of Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissett. When "things" are right, her voice sounds great but just the opposite if there's the least hash in the chain.

Hello Peter I don't no what you did with the prog. but it's much more stable  with startup after loading the songs I had some little problems choose the sample ferq. but that problem is complet gone, so as you now ,I'm happy with the new xx it's stable, I can play on special mode with a firewre con. on a weiss dac, no hickups, and the min. mode with xt tweak on My 6 core amd processor works on 102 % just perfect, also when I play with Jriver on the min.mode , It sound much better then the standard mode and close to jplay only the hibernate mode have other sound and accents
xx is still my prog.

Dear Peter I'm a newbe here but there"s nothing wrong with my ears and my modest gear, and after 30 sec. of listening to your program I knew instantly this is gonna be a hit !!@! It was like a present from hell eeh heaven !! Amazing, I've never expected this, that in my lifetime anyone could solve this problem without spending huge amounts of money. I know, I sound silly but I'm exhausted, I hardly slept within three days (or nights) and  wish all of you the best. gonna look for Black sabbath on the net iron man! Was 40 years ago.

Grtzzzzz Lodewiekus (Loek) ;)                                                       

Hey Loek, nice little story !

I actually never realized that Paranoid is from 43 years ago by now, and how I like the album today the same as back then. Same atmosphere, everything. Still, I was 12 there, so how does it happen ?

Btw, look here : http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3422131/2013/04/08/Black-Sabbath-komt-naar-Ziggo-Dome.dhtml
I won't go because I stopped after Sabotage when things started to be "noise" IMO.

Regards, and welcome !
Peter


:welcome01:

Thank you for the feedback and kind words Henri.
Peter

thanks for the even so nice re but I just came out of a coma, and when you could see my typing skills you would think that I'm mentally ill...
I can,t wait to unlock your program but have at the moment not the right vitamins on my PayPal.
No job, so I belong to the losers nowadays.
A good sound helps me to forget that ! About half a year ago I bought a Xonar STX for my Stax SRM-Xh, which has survived from a disaster. I had to admit that those little silicon bast.... have made a huge improvement since the days of Black S. LOL. I was really surprised, not bad at all, besides ESR EMI drop outs from Bill, a.s.o.
So a thought lets find out what I can do to improve that, with little money, which is sometimes not poss. Butt logical thinking and studying electronics should do the rest.
And not to forget, what is the approach from other audiofiles in this ?? So I started reading, reading and reading A LOT !! Believe me Pete this is the first time I react on a forum, and (maybe) you wanna know, why.
Besides the technical "things" I missed something.
Until now I've nothing read like: Ive bin to the doctor and gave my earchannels and drums a thorough cleaning and made a app. for a hearing test. And the come out of that was that I have a dip(s) around ..... KHz.
Believe me Pete, no audiofile with gear from 4,5,6, even 7 figures who wants to know that kind of information, or simply think its not thrue or something like: I know what I'm hearing Einstein, you don't !! And that's a fact I have to admit, thats logical thinking from another part of our body: that very big chemical factory between our ears !!
And its not funny to say butt... It makes mistakes, a lot of them. Think about a magician; how the f... does he do that?
It's called the Huntington eff. I believe. Our brains expect what will happen and when it doesn,t it means crysis, chaos.
I mean to say people: be aware of this; and the result is that you give your ch. fact. the time to repare the mistakes.
Make changes step by step, butt that's the problem with our "handycap". Good sound is better than .... !!
Okay guys and girls that was a mistake i'm sorry, those damned chem. again!!
I,m gonna stop making friends now, maybe that is a fact too...

grtz Loek :) :)

Holy Moly!

This thing wipes the floor with foobar2k + ASIO! And by a huge margin!
What I had bee listening to all this time?!
Congratulations, you gave me one single good reason to use Windows!

If you just did one for Ubuntu a nice music player could be black-boxed with a simple lcd display.

Amazing work!

Hey hey ...

It is quite interesting (well, for me) that two subsequent posts with some "wow" in them, are about the NOT activated version. This, while I don't recall a single other one ever. Of course, everybody who ended up with obtaining a license will have done so for a reason, but still ...

But here's a maybe interesting little story which is not so obvious to all :

What we've always been doing with XXHighEnd, is provide a demo version which should already be better sounding than the competition. So, this is actually for free, and the only downside is the average playback time per XXHighEnd startup which is something like 30 minutes before sound stops.

But is is tough to keep it like this (better sounding with the Demo version already) because all what's in the Activated version is or has been copied by others, and is provided or for free or with some beep or the trial time expires, etc.
So, I can tell you, the really only one player out there which is genuine, is cPlay (cics started just after XXHighEnd but on a very different route, and I (or "we") never looked in there to copy smart stuff). All of the others (and this includes Mac - not Linux which is a quite different story) spring from XXHighEnd.

So, the real thing happens with the activated version, while nobody can try that (with the Demo version), obviously.

The reason why it is setup like this, is to prevent the "copyers" from instantly applying what we found out here which today at least requires a license and which otherwise would be too easy. And mind you, some of the things applied can take MONTHS really to find out how to do it, while copying it may take less than a day.
And maybe I should tell that by now some 12,000 hours of development is in there, and this is only because "we" try to be fresh, new and ahead of everything. Pioneering. This costs infinitely more than copying.

I must honestly add that in the beginning the described above was not the reason; Back then it was about the program tweaking the OS which could be "dangerous" to some, and while things got possibly destroyed (not anticipating any "OS" knowledge), it seemed better to at least pay first before whatever help had to be provided to repair things. But the world has changed since then, and a. actually nothing much goes wrong because it is all quite decent by now, and b. people have gotten more knowledged and install OSes more than I ever did myself. Add to this that other software tries to apply the same for free, and who am I to think people should be protected from this maybe more difficult environment.

Anyway, this is how I like to read posts which almost explicitly are about the Demo version only. Still, it nicely hooks in to my thinkering about how to setup Demo vs Activated in the future, because actually it is totally stupid to provide a Demo version which does not reflect the real SQ capabilities (ehm, by miles).

Possibly this is too much in the open, but people may have more ideas about this than I myself. So, if anyone has good ideas, please let know. I am not sure whether people with a license may come up with better ideas than people without, so I ask both camps to respond. I know, the not activated people merely won't know what it is (or will be) about, but exactly them may feel annoyed not be able to really trial the merits (well, this seems obvious).

So much for my Saturday morning blahblah,
Peter