XXHighEnd

Ultimate Audio Playback => Your thoughts about the Sound Quality => Topic started by: Nick on October 30, 2017, 02:03:22 pm



Title: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Nick on October 30, 2017, 02:03:22 pm
I just applied the 2.09 patch. looking at the release notes they seemed to mainly talk about bug fixes for 2.08 and some additional features. Boy SQ came as a surprise  :)

Overall the 2.09 sound "pops" much more than with 2.08 in a very good way. There is more presence and dynamics. The response is more extended with more energy in the highs and bass is just in a different class, so much more tune full whilst being better damped and delivering greater weight. My only issue with 2.08 was that somehow the musical event (or liveness) was just ever so slightly diminished, whilst in many other ways 2.08 was big step forwards. 2.09 really seems to pull so much together, to my ears its a good deal more "real", I am defiantly looking forwards to spending more time listening  :).

Thank you Peter !

Nick.

ps I hope that there is an under the covers reason (ie in the software) for what I heard  ;)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on October 30, 2017, 03:29:42 pm
Nick, beware, this is what I wrote on Saturday Morning (but I never posted it because I got unsure) :


The very special sound of 2.09

This time I will be the first myself with expressing about the SQ of a version. This is because I already have it, and you don't. :grazy:

I describe the sound as "very special" because it is at a so large distance from what we are used to that again it is hard to grasp what happened.

Important : Although I describe this sound officially from 2.09, I can not tell whether some or all of it was already in 2.08. This is because only 4 days ago I discovered a combination of settings and other matters, which possibly would have worked out the same 2 months ago (say the start of 2.08).
You will see below that the special sound possibly is not for everybody, but it is hard to see how the same would work out with different hardware etc.

[...]

These are the two most special exhibitis from this sound :
1. The bass which is now playing super-separately as if the bass player has his own amplification in the listening room;
2. The highs which seemingly are added with 6dB but only beyond at a certain threshold of frequency (say of 8KHz).

Ad 1.
Any electric bass now exhibits as the individual fast keys being audible (can I say bass walks ?). They just jump out so much that tracks become unrecognizable of it.

Ad 2.
This implies a detail unheard. So, people may recognize (vastly) more detail in a similar realm from the G3 - well, this makes that 10-fold (maybe this is figurative, but as long as you hear me say "infinitely" than it's OK :swoon:).
This makes my "electronic music" unrecognizable. And I mean completely.

Yesterday I was playing something from Ron Boots (this is a synthesizer artist) which was in my Demo Gallery and which I thus play more often. Well, no-way I heard it ever before. The combination of mentioned bass and highs make his (analogue) synthesizer sound so full and warm and inmensely detailed on the squares which are super square *and* super soft, that from start to end (of 10 minutes) you listen with open mouth and a "how can that happen".

[...]


I left out a few passages because they were subjective to reasons which I invalidated later. As a matter of fact, I thought that it was because of a combination of settings, but by now I already know it is merely just 2.09. And Nick, your post certainly helps me with some confidence. But I'd say we both write rather similar about 2.09 ...

Thanks man,
Peter

PS: People should not look at my sig at this moment.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Nick on October 30, 2017, 05:58:14 pm
But I'd say we both write rather similar about 2.09.

Without a doubt Peter, you capture what I am hearing what you are describing above. Bass is such good fun, and as you say partically playing electronic music, it drives the music forwards so well now. All of this really was not the case with 2.08.

I have managed to listen to some more snipits today and applied your xx settings, WOW its such a great sound, the sense of fun and energy in music really comes across.

Regards the 6db change in volume, I hear this too. I have another way of getting a similar effect in my PC which you will know about. Interestingly the sound quality that comes with the extra volume here is very similar in character to 2.09 - pushing in a very similar direction indead.

More time listening is needed but form the point of view of a sheer fun enjoyment factor coming from the music, I think 2.09 may turn out to be amongst the best releases ever.

I cannot stop  :) when I am listening.

Nick.




Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: manisandher on November 03, 2017, 01:01:44 pm
Just upgraded to 2.09...

And I love the way it sounds! To my ears 2.09 sounds like a natural extension of the Lush cable. It's almost as if Peter has taken what he learned from developing the Lush cable and somehow incorporated it into 2.09 (though I doubt this is really possible).

The overall sound seems mellower and fuller. There used to be an ever-so-slight edge to the mid-range on my system (especially at higher volumes), but that has totally gone now. I can listen at pretty much any volume and the sound remains perfectly balanced throughout. Nothing screams anymore, and yet all the details remain in buckets. The bass seems fuller and deeper, and the highs more 'shiny'.

All this really complements the AP filter too.

Excellent upgrade Peter. Thanks.

Mani.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 03, 2017, 05:13:58 pm
Hi Mani, were you upgrading from 2.08d?

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: manisandher on November 03, 2017, 05:29:26 pm
Hi Juan,

No, I went straight from 2.07 to 2.09. I used the paste-over-patch and it worked perfectly first time... on both my audio PCs using RAM-OS. (Of course I booted into base-OS first, but remained in MinOS for the pasting. I tested that everything was working correctly before booting back into RAM-OS.)

Mani.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 03, 2017, 05:46:58 pm
Hi Mani, thanks, I was just asking to know if you had noticed any improvement in SQ compared to 2.08d. I still have to play a bit with the speakers placement to be totally satisfied. I'll try it again in a couple of days when I get back home and install 2.09

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Nick on November 03, 2017, 07:18:02 pm
Juan hi,

I rolled back to 2.08d today to compare with 2.09 as Peter mentioned he was not 100% sure if 2.08 had some of the sq benifits already. Moving back to 2.09 there is a very clear improvment , I heard  again the changes that Peter, Mani and I describe above.

Regards,
Nick.



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 03, 2017, 07:29:11 pm
Thanks Nick, that sounds great. When I compare both versions I'll post here the results

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 03, 2017, 09:10:32 pm
"What a difference a release makes..."

I got version 2.09 installed and running yesterday. I pasted it over version  2.07. So, I skipped 2.08. At first I didn't read the post above in this topic and therefore didn't expect much impact on SQ.

But... listening to the first song... what's that?! - powerfull, strong basses, incredibly clear sound and perfect soundstage.
The basses were even too strong for my ears and I was thinking: "Isn't that maybe a bit too much?". Especially electronic basses sounded to hard for my ears. To compare I changed between 2.07 and 2.09 a few times: incredible, what a difference a release makes!

Later a read the post in this topic and changed my settings to Peter's values. Yes, much better, not so hard and harsh sound any more, especially when I used Arcpredic.
In general I am not a fan of AP, because in my system it always caused too much smearing what also happens a bit with version 2.09.
I was impressed when I went to sleep last night, but not 100% convinced yet about naturalness of the sound, especially for acoustic instruments.

This afternoon... another day... and it's perfect. Somehow all what sounded a bit too hard and harsh yesterday was gone. Maybe the hardware like NOS1a and amplifiers had to get used to the new tunes too, not just my ears  :)

There was no doubt about great SQ for electronic music, but for acoustic instruments? Therefore I played acoustic tracks, like from Stephane Grapelli, Rob Wasserman, etc., compared SQ my amazing Platine Verdier turntable and my other DACs and I have to say:
YES! 2.09 brings amazing sound, for sure far the best I ever got out of a DAC. And it's very natural sound.

I wasn't sure about AP, switched it on and off pretty often and I prefer now to listen without AP because of the so clear and precise tunes.

Great job, Peter!

Kind regards
Richard




Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: tempo on November 04, 2017, 04:17:32 pm

1. The bass which is now playing super-separately as if the bass player has his own amplification in the listening room;
2. The highs which seemingly are added with 6dB but only beyond at a certain threshold of frequency (say of 8KHz).


Hi, Peter,

Your description is accurate, but 2.09 makes the bass and highs sound like they are coming from speakers that are separate from the main (mid-range) drivers, which is  distracting. The music no longer sounds as well integrated as it is in 2.08d or even 2.07.

To put it another way, the sound of 2.09 is somewhat like a speaker system where the drivers are not properly aligned, making it easy to identify each driver as a separate unit. To my ears, 2.08d is much more seamless from top to bottom than 2.09.

Independently, a friend with a completely different system contacted me to share the same opinion. For us, newer is not always better, so we are staying with 2.08d as the best overall SQ to date.

I'm sure others will disagree!

Cheers,
Joseph


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 04, 2017, 06:17:55 pm
Ahaaaaaaaa ...

Quote
XXHE 2.08d / Windows 10 Pro x64, Build 10074

That. And for 100% sure. I desribed in on CA in between some (offtopic) lines. No mid and the worst ever.
Maybe I can find back where this was, although usually this is a tough task with all the offtpic nonsense in there. :)

It is funny that I can recognize it by your description !
Or just very good described by you. Haha.

So of course you can stay with 2.07 and 10074, but 10074 is "obsolete" for a longer time by now - I mean SQ wise. I reulalry try it (like I did for 2.09) and it never improves. The contrary, it gets worse. And how it is now, it renders music (OK, from 2.09) completely unlistenable.

Joseph, great thanks for this (although I have the feeling that you don't thank me much).
If you want a link to e.g. 14393.0 (no further upgrades applied to it) let me know. Or 10586.0, but that really isn't the better one (did not tray that with 2.08 or 2.09 !).

Kind regards and sincere thanks for posting (I doubted a bit whether it was my ears of the day),
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 04, 2017, 06:27:48 pm
This is what I posted in CA, only 3 days ago :

All is a 100% matter of what your reference is, hence what you are used to (by now). Easy example (well, for myself, and you need to believe me) :
When Windows 10 came about, the first version which was supported was the (almost Alpha) Build 10074. This is still supported and the RAM-OS Disk we provide allows for booting into it with two mouse clicks (maybe three) and within a minute or two you can compare with any of the other 5 OSes on that disk, each in 4 modes (so yes, that is 20 differently sounding OSes). So, once in a while I give this 10074 a listen again to see whether it surpasses the current Build 14393.0 "reference", especially when I changed SQ in the player software.
Day before yesterday was such a day I did this.
 
Am I off topic ?
No, not really; while 10074 has been my standard for 6 months or so and found it the best, though a kind of special because it had a recognizable flavor (never a good thing), if I listen to it today, it all over s*cks. All over.


This is what I posted later, on the same day (you can see my heart was full of it ;)) :

So I have my own Lush in use now for quite some months. I quickly got used to its "sound" and am amazed each day again how albums I have known forever, now suddenly sound for the so much better. But ... this always has been with one consistent set of settings in XXHighEnd I was used to, hence, I never tried anything else, which I already shouldn't because of changing two things at the time (like USB cable plus settings). But a week ago I started with that, actually encouraged by a new XXHighEnd version with inherently better SQ to begin with and so automatically from one came the other. And what I now notice is that this cable allows for "infinitely" tweaking SQ by means of changes at the source (which is the playback software). The SQ suddenly is outrageous and the Lush is doing something quite differently from before : it carries another dimension. But let me quit being a commercial by means of this :
 
I started thinking about posting this because elsewhere I just posted about W10 Build 10074 and how this sounds like total cr*p now, while it has been my standard for 6 months or so. The difference ? the Lush. There is no single way that this OS can ever be made to sound satisfactory, so bad it is. There is just no mid, to name something. Bass is devastating, highs are thin as thin can be.
Point sort of is : 10074 always had a flavor which never is a good thing. But, I could like it, until a new (supported) build came about and that became the reference/standard for a longer time (these are matters all XXHighEnd users agree over easily). So, 10074 is wrong somewhere and the Lush brings that forward wherever it can. At least that is my reasoning now.
 
Yesterday it was Haloween. For me this meant that I found a couple of "Haloween" albums on Tidal, of which many appear to be up to hard core metal. It sounded gorgeous.  Now *that* is something (a kind of big victory that this can happen, right ?).
The other day we talked about Beastie Boys and how they now sound so good in a "hi-fi" system. But metal ?


This last piece refers to the lacking mid. And when I say lacking, I mean : it is not there AT ALL.
14393.0 ? all the other way around, but better balanced than a quite profound mid as how it was. At least with the Lush. So bass is better and highs are better, but probably it will be so that the mid decreased somewhat (and for 10074 all over).

Interesting eh ?

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 06, 2017, 10:22:02 am
Hi Peter,

I have got a question about the obviously big differences in SQ between die XXHE releases 2.07 up to 2.09:
Would it be possible that these factors which influence SQ in that way, could be adjusted by the user in a future release? I am thinking about a few more Q parameters.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Scroobius on November 06, 2017, 09:24:13 pm
I had a chat with "golden ears" Nick about 2.09 just after he had heard the differences he so eloquently and accurately described in his post. At that time I had not had a proper listen as I had been rushing round like a mad thing doing other things. Now I have and 2.09 is superb. Detail is crazy bringing good quality live recordings to life.  I have just now increased the bass level a tad (via Hypex) and in my room it gives a more natural balance. This might be anathema but that is how it sounds on first listening but I have many different recordings and types of music to listen to before I select final settings.

Cheers

Paul


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: briefremarks on November 06, 2017, 10:07:34 pm
I had not planned initially on upgrading to 2.09, assuming that there were no benefits to SQ.  But after reading these posts, I did upgrade over the weekend and listened for a while (like the WHOLE weekend).  My impressions:

- The biggest difference for me initially is that the occasional ticks and scratches I heard with 2.07 and 2.08d after upgrading to G3 seem to be gone!  This in itself would be huge.
- More detail and separation.  There are fast note slurs (Pat Metheny and Jim Hall album for instance) that are more separated; drums (Kind of Blue brushes, etc.) more separated and real; and more solid image location.  I did have to more precisely measure distance from speakers than before 2.08d
- SPL seems louder at same volume settings; even at -36dB I can fill a pretty large room.
- Peter's latest Q settings and SFS seems to be an improvement; not 100% certain about this, but the sound is truly magnificent with these settings.

Ramesh


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality - xQ1
Post by: PeterSt on November 07, 2017, 12:03:10 pm
Would it be possible that these factors which influence SQ in that way, could be adjusted by the user in a future release? I am thinking about a few more Q parameters.

Hi Richard,

I know people who'd offer me money if I take *out* a few Q parameters ! haha
But no, I don't think that will be possible or at least not soon.
But there is something else to offer ...

Luckily we still have members who explicitly explore things, and one of them is Colin (coliny). He was working on letting sound MQA acceptable and came up with something I never saw and also personally never ever tried. Nice software - it contains parameters and in 10 years of time I myself didn't try some combination yet. But Colin did :

Make Q1 very large but sustain the SFS at quite small. Tug this into the sauce named 2.09, et voliŠ.
Yesterday I listened to the always difficult Joe's Garage (Frank Zappa), planned to listen to The Yellow Shark as well, but never came to that because I was listening with open mouth to Joe's garage. And maybe it should be advised to listen to, because I suddenly hear so clear what the whole album is about. And don't I suddenly miss the "Advisory - Explicit Lyrics". So yes, that clear all suddenly is.

So Colin came up with a 14x40 (Q1/xQ1) for MQA with unknown SFS, and I made that 30x40 and SFS = 0.7.
And now it looks like we must re-do 10 or so years and find best settings again.
I think I can hear through that the Lush (USB cable) also contributes here. The highs receive some magic kind of spell in a fashion that I hear stereo imaging unheard before. It is almost like left/right interaction is manipulated.

I hope some more people can share their opinion on this one !

Peter



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality - xQ1
Post by: acg on November 08, 2017, 01:14:11 am
Hi Peter,

I've only listened a little with SFS=0.7 and xQ1=40 and I'm am not really liking what I am hearing (Mark Knopfler - Privateering).  There is a bleaching happening especially around the brush strokes on the drum and mid vocal range.  In some ways the electric guitar strings are more real, but they too are bleached and missing some meat.

Anyway, early days, but I'll give it more of a go for a while and see what I think.

Cheers,

Anthony


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on November 08, 2017, 08:03:44 am
Well its got an open window in the treble which does seem to have a more natural sound. I think I've lost bass but perhaps its not gone but transformed into a better bass. More listening required. Gosh I would never have thought to try those settings. Inspires me to try settings.

As soon as I change to Hires files(24/44/96/192) problems emerge especially ticks. 16/44 no problems. Xx really struggles with some hires files(Early HDTracks) while others cruise through. Recent download hires files seem to be very good(from HD Tracks) even some 24/352 which sound amazing from where the Netherlands, Carmen Gomes sings the blues, Sound Liason Music.

No boot was caused by HDMI cable from audio computer to Oppo. Gosh new Oppo has caused some headaches.

Robert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 08, 2017, 08:26:20 am
Quote
I think I've lost bass but perhaps its not gone but transformed into a better bass.

You are usually right on your SQ judgments and allow me to grab the second half of that sentence.  :) Yesterday I have been thinking a couple of times that I now seriously have too much bass and must do something about it. But quality of it is good and I will allow myself to get used to it a little, until people in the room start to complain. It also depends on how loud I play, and this setting does not allow to play as loud as I am used to (for volume setting I mean) because it is just louder. This seems to be caused by everything, especially the highs.

If you have problems with Highres now, this will be because of too much to read (from say disk) for the too low SFS. But also combined with this super high Q1 which, honestely, a long time ago did not want to play anyway. I recall 30x30 to be the highest possible, while now we do 30x40 and it works. This is a crazy long buffer somewhere which is all in the kernel of Windows and further out of my control, except for the necessity to match the SFS.
Btw, I set the SFS to 0.70 just to make it a little lower compared to the 0.90 I had. I don't even know whether I did it for a reason, but probebly to dial in the extreme of something which was never tried before. Btw, I played 24/96 with that yesterday (upsampled to 32/768), without an issue.

Regards and thank you for your feedback,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 08, 2017, 08:46:51 am
Quote
I've only listened a little with SFS=0.7 and xQ1=40 and I'm am not really liking what I am hearing (Mark Knopfler - Privateering).  There is a bleaching happening especially around the brush strokes on the drum and mid vocal range.  In some ways the electric guitar strings are more real, but they too are bleached and missing some meat.

Hi Anthony,

A few things could be crucial here, but depending on your own settings. So let's see :

For us NOS1(a/G3) users, the buffer size in the NOS1 Driver Control Panel is suddenly a leading factor with this high Q1 (notice the 30x40, while you only mention the 40 (so 14x40 ?)). So this buffer plays a role in the same area as the Driver's buffer size (think of resonance) and I have that at 8ms. This has not been done explicitly by me, but it just is at that forever (for the maybe off reason that 8ms gives the most problems with the Phisolator, so I actually test this continuously).

If possible, more crucial is the fact that I use native Arc Prediction. Of course I can't tell for real, but I'd swear that your "bleach" was in my system just the same because the Custom Filter now seems to smear too much "white" into the sound. Actually this is Lush USB cable related, but alas, you are using that too. And if I don't use Arc Prediction, I now use the highest filter for 705600 (not the lowest which seems to worsen the "white").

By pure accident I yesterday played Tracks from Mark Knopfler, but in MQA incarnation. It sounded gread and especially "honest" and also full (say the opposite of bleach ?).

A thing I tried to pay special attention to is whether the distance between the now crazy bass (this really is so and of youn ask me caused by Arc Prediction) and the also crazy highs (I wonder where this stops) does not imply a hole in the mid. Regarding this I am psychologically influenced by 10074 which totally lack mid, but each time my attention is drawn to it, it is immediately overruled by a super strong voice. Yesterday I also heard a upper mid bass with the superb purring of an electric bass (if that still is the right term to use for the sound a cat produces when happy and warm), in a track I never heard that purring before. Because this is about very fast (mid) bass response, it tells me that this is all over good.
I guess it keeps on drawing my attention because of the already mentioned "bass player now brought his own amplification (which is the truth for an electric bass player) and thinking further it is all even more separated than it already was. No instruments interfere with each other BUT maybe it is more asy to perceive studio recordings now (this is a negative for net result).

Anthony, the key dial for you(r bleach sound) will be the SFS. Set it a bit higher and that tonality will change (I think).

Regards and you too, thank you for your trying and feedback.
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Nick on November 08, 2017, 10:15:21 pm
I had a listen using q1=30 q1x=40 and sfs around 1 today.

This is how it sounded compared to q1=7 , q1x=0 and sfs 1.8.

With the higher q settings.

Highs are smoother and less "etched" but i would say slighty smoothed or filtered. What makes me think this is that there is a small loss of detail.

Mids are tonally convincing but lack a small amount of dynamic impact. Guitars and electronic mid sounds can be very satisfying. Voices are smooth full and natural sounding but again I think the last gramms of detail whuch is not reproduced so well.

Lows are good, well damped and tunefull but extension is a little less and transient impact not quite as good.

Overall I do get a sense of a more balanced spectral resonse with the sense of an excited upper mid resonse being evened out very nicly  which is welcome, but as mentioned above this comes with small prices else where.


With the lower q settings

Highs are more detailed and contribute to the sound poping into the room, with better defined stage and slightly stronger dynamic. Comeing with the detail is a slight sense of hash and edge but I am being very picky on this point.

Upper mid vocals can, depending on the track, sound less tonally convincing with just a tiny amount of stridancy but do have very enjoyable presence. Lower voices are rich and very detailed, highlighting backing vocals and harmonys. Overall energy and dynamics are very enjoyable, coupled with the detail and seperation the music really has that in the room liveness.

Lows are similar in terms of damping but slightly more extended, have more weight and are definalty more tunefull. A clear favorite in terms of driving tracks forwards, giving a big grin factor to the music. Seperate amplifiers playing here too I think  :)




Overall I am supprised that settings so far "off the dial" as it were can work so well. Despite the tendancy to be ever so slightly etched the low q settings have it for me, they just gets that much closer to live, with more of the fun and musical event comming across.

Asside from the Q settings, 2.09 is proving to be a real revolation , thank you very much again Peter :soundsgood:

Regards,

Nick.



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 11, 2017, 02:04:42 pm
After some time, too much, I returned to find the sound I was looking for. I was playing with the position of the speakers but I knew that something else was missing. Thanks to the suggestions to change the Q settings and also to discover that the change of seat I had made was a bad issue I found the solution. It seems strange and it cost me to realize. I had always heard from an armchair with a backrest under the shoulders and it occurred to me to change this chair for one with a backrest that reached over the ears. That was really a bad idea. It may seem silly but the fact of returning to my usual seat with the backrest below the shoulders has given me the spatial and airy sound I had before.

More important has been the change of the Q settings. Now I use Q1: 15, xQ: 1. Q3: 0, Q4: 1, Q5: 0.

Q1: 15, xQ: 1 softens the sound a bit with respect to Q1: 14, xQ: 1. But the big improvement comes especially with the change from Q3: 1 to Q3: 0.  That, dramatically changes the bass making it deeper and more controlled.

Now SFS is 4.0 max: 120

In short, happy again.
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 11, 2017, 05:18:39 pm
Thank you for that, Juan !
And yes, such a chair (reflection right behind the ears) really makes a difference you would not want.

Kind regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 11, 2017, 07:29:52 pm
During the last days I did some testing with different Q parameters and got amazing results.
The values I prefer now with release 2.09 are:
Q1: 14x40, Q3/Q4/Q5: 0/0/0, SFS: 0.7, Clockres: 1ms, Coustom Filter: High (2nd in the list).

I tested also with very high buffer 30x40 and got the same effect, Peter described above when listening Frank Zappa's "Jo's Garage": very detailed and clear sound.
But, other tracks with acoustic instruments, like e.g. Clark Terry's trumpet, sound too hard and harsh with these settings, it almost hurts. Using the AP filter smothes the sound pretty much, too much in most cases. Therefore I prefer the costom filter.

As I can see, all that is pretty different to other reports here. The reasons could be:
- I am using a tube preamp and tube amps (brand Ayon). I have to try it without the the preamp once more, what I didn't do since I received the 3G upgraded NOS1-a.
- My Lush is 3m long (I am the first and maybe still the only one using such a long Lush USB cable).

Peter, I believe I should try a shorter Lush just for a test. What do you think?
If this will bring a significant improvement I will have to regroup completly my hifi units.

Once again I have to state:
With 3G upgrade, release 3.09 and these new Q-settings SQ made such huge steps foreward, I could not have imagined before.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2017, 09:55:20 am
Quote
- My Lush is 3m long (I am the first and maybe still the only one using such a long Lush USB cable).

Peter, I believe I should try a shorter Lush just for a test. What do you think?

There is one other out there of 3m and I don't have feedback from it.

What do I think ... that is difficult. As you know I had the idea already that 3m could be on the edge and I am glad it works in the first place. But how this works out for SQ I really can't tell (maybe I should have tried yours, but this is already difficult because of breaking in etc.).

In the far end I would not worry too much. Also see my next post (maybe posts).

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2017, 11:10:38 am
So here goes for my Sunday morning blah :

Maybe we must all look beyond where we normally look, because I don't understand myself by now, where this SQ comes from. It is just too crazy, suddenly.

Last night, track after track, I was and remained amazed of what's all squeezed out for bass, mid and highs, mixed with totally unrecognizable tracks which are so familiar, as if they are played through an other system in another room, or live by the artists themselves, for that matter.
I repeat : I don't understand myself how this emerges. UNLESS - but I did not explicitly check that - it is all because I switched off the OSD texts (not the Wallpaper Coverart itself). So among all my by now wildest settings changes, that OSD Text being off, is really the only common denominator.

Help.

The last two days I played with :
Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
And just mentioning : Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
And thus OSD Text = Off. Wallpaper (front and back) On.

The OSD Text thing should not be underestimated, as it will do something to the OS itself but also to the Sound Engine which does not need to deal with it (in the loop of Playback, which is what it comes down to). Also :

I did NOT solve the issue of the Volume not working when no Wallpaper Covertart is used since 2.08, because exactly there the SQ change may be implied. So instead I offered the old means of (slow) volume change (with a .tst file, see Release Notes of 2.09).

Anyway, and I think you all may agree, the SQ change is so crazy, it is crazier than ever before. And where you guys may see the largest change between 2.08 and 2.09, for me this is way more difficult because somewhere between 2.08 and 2.09 I will have done something which I implemented on day X and which in aftermath is not recognizable (what it has been). So I G-D don't know myself !
It feels (also on behalf of you !) like "we" played with some setting just for trying, and now something popped in all of our systems. And now all is good (or at least changed vastly). IOW, no matter what settings you dial back into, the base of the SQ remains as it is.

The level of detail is inifinite.
The bass is infinitely loud.
The highs do not observe like wrong - they don't observe at all (brain has to time to observe).
And this gag remains for me : when I am sure the mids stay behind, something happens which shows the mids as the most profound ever.

I also keep on feeling that all "frequencies" are infinitely detached now. So maybe you reall me telling about the electric bass player and his own amplification (which always is true in real life) ... this now happens to everything. But meanwhile each shifted something like an octave in their own domain.
All things which can't be.

Quote
But, other tracks with acoustic instruments, like e.g. Clark Terry's trumpet, sound too hard and harsh with these settings,

So Yes Richard, these things happen as long as we can't find our "setting". This is very very tough to judge for real merit because who tells whether that Clark Terry is a decent recording ? I mean, man, if things change so wildly then we must re-learn to listen and this includes re-judge. But of course Clark Terry is fine (not that I ever heard of him) and so we wander for that other setting(s). Well, I just gave mine so maybe that helps you and others (but two days in only).

Quote
Q1: 14x40, Q3/Q4/Q5: 0/0/0, SFS: 0.7, Clockres: 1ms, Coustom Filter: High (2nd in the list).

As I can see, all that is pretty different to other reports here.

Richard, maybe not. I had the same for two (other) days with only the change of SFS to 0.9 and the highest custom or native Arc Prediction. This is not miles off from yours, so that really should have something, but also for sure not for all (and this is about the SFS of 0.7 or 0.9). So this could be the wildest stereo imaging effect, but if it does not work for all, then good bye (I forgot where it went wrong for me). The crucial general one is the 14x40 here, which is a kind of intuitive change because of how the dials present it, but anyway that for a base is not wrong at all.
And of course when I see that working, I overdo it with a 30x40 ...

That this 30x40 for "base" does not work out for everybody with descriptions as "bland" ... I tried to observe that and I think this could be about the same I just told about : highs ? what highs. And it could be the largest pitfall ever.
So yes, completely true, especially in retrospection it could be that the highs disappeared (sort of). However, just because I have my ever test signal music, I just know how much of highs there is, but now it looks like highs where highs must be. This may be related to my high sensitive mid/high of 118dB (which is also crazy of course) but the mentioned "infinite detail" - which btw is also about "detail where detail should be" can only spring from "perfectly rendered highs". In other words : it is also very unbelievable how no disturbing highs are present any more anywhere (someone told the same but I forgot who - maybe Nick) which somehow seem to give room for the not-fake detail and which very much includes the again "infinite" clarity which is suddenly there everywhere. Mind you, an album like Joe's Garage (Zappa) has always been a strange one regarding the highs and which always lacked fundament. Listen to it now. Ultimate clarity which ... now has fundament ? no, I don't think it is that what happend. But a boat load of hash disappeared (at least that is how it comes across to me).

The effetcs of the above should be encouraged for by the 30x40 of Q1 but with a quite special side effect : removing fake detail hence noise, now bringing forward what should remain (whatever that is). So, this is actually back to my hundreds of times expressed curiosity : The buffers should all be as large as possible and not as small as possible because the latter theoretically imply noisenoisenoise (and super much overhead). And for those with a pocket calculator : 30x40 = 1200 while 14x1 = 14. So something is more than 85 times quieter.
Previously we needed this "harpening" (same as with photos) to perceive sufficient detail, but while sharpening is done by adding noise, by now, everything in the environment improving, the sharpening expresses as noise. Remove that and the native sound remains.

Blahblahblahblah.
But I still don't know what happened, where.

Anyway, going this direction a kind of obviously also highered the CockRes (this one is dangerous because not really in the same realm, but for (less) overhead matters it should help) and what remains is the Driver Buffer size and don't I also recall a Kernel Streaming buffer size somewhere (I never touch that one and maybe it can't even be changed - I forgot). Of course we have a related XTweaks setting (the Nervous Rate) and the SFS itself at 20 should be high enough not to bother.

Most crucial could be the 30x40 which now even works (as I said earlier, I thought that it could not, ever back that is) which I could try to give a maximum of way more. We must of course be able to run into limits, right ?

Did I say Help ?

Peter





Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: acg on November 12, 2017, 11:11:18 pm
Hi Peter,

Yep...those settings are much, much better.  I had gone back to my old settings but in my short listening so far this morning my sound is superb and I do now think you are onto something.  I'll expand after I've had more time to listen. 

Cheers,

Anthony


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality - ACDC
Post by: acg on November 13, 2017, 09:03:20 am
Peter, have you listened to any ACDC with the new settings?  Wow..


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 09:07:36 am
Quote
Peter, have you listened to any ACDC with the new settings?  Wow..

Not particularly with these settings, but maybe two weeks ago 3 tracks from my Demo Gallery passed by and I wondered where the nastyness had gone (ADDC is not always the most friendly). But since I was just playing music from a larger playlist, I forgot to revisit it. So I guess I need to now !

I expect guitars with a lot of air in them and with a 2 fold more fundament and even punch. More slick too. Am I right ?

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: bodiebill on November 13, 2017, 09:47:20 am
I tried Peter's settings as far as possible on my 2-core i3 T6100:

Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
no Appointment Scheme.
OSD Text = Off.
Wallpaper (front and back) On.


However apart from getting stutters, the Remote Desktop connections is killed immediately after hitting Play.

Any suggestion how I can tweak the above settings, get a bit of the advantage, without the stutters/disconnection?

Best, Dennis


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 09:54:54 am
Dennis,

Quote
However apart from getting stutters, de Remote Desktop connections is killed.

That won't be related to mentioned settings. Can be the "Use Remote Desktop" setting or possibly that you try this in Normal OS (W10 versions exist which do that but are OK in MinOS). Or the W10 version itself ...

If you have stuttering with these settings, then I'm afraid you'll need to back out a bit (try a lower xQ1 and see how far you can go with it, upwards). Or, try for your situation how the SFS relates (all works in combination with each other).

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 13, 2017, 10:00:11 am
Yes Peter, the sound with your latest settings is spectacular. The basses are bigger, not sure that they are also deeper, there's more detail and also the soundstage is wider and deeper. In moments I had the feeling that the upper bass invades a bit the low mids but I can not be sure, I comment it just in case it can give some clue to make an even better sound.

Anyway, I like these settings more than the ones I have until now. As I say, spectacular!

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: acg on November 13, 2017, 10:09:48 am
Quote
Peter, have you listened to any ACDC with the new settings?  Wow..

Not particularly with these settings, but maybe two weeks ago 3 tracks from my Demo Gallery passed by and I wondered where the nastyness had gone (ADDC is not always the most friendly). But since I was just playing music from a larger playlist, I forgot to revisit it. So I guess I need to now !

I expect guitars with a lot of air in them and with a 2 fold more fundament and even punch. More slick too. Am I right ?

Regards,
Peter

Dirty Deeds was the album and the guitars are just like you say...but the whole presentation is so profound and spectacular and the soundstage sooo very wide and crystal clear. 

A while back I made some fancy vibration isolation stuff for the NOS1a G3 and it cleaned up the mids and highs tremendously without changing any software settings.  The change of sound was not subtle and I had to get rid of my cheap-arse speaker cable for something a bit more suitable to tame the presentation...which worked.  Anyway, these new settings combined with my anti-vibration stuff are just fabulous.



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 10:18:47 am
Quote
The basses are bigger, not sure that they are also deeper,

Hey Juan,

As you know I use an "open baffle" speaker. OK. Now, at some stage it started to occur to me that the oompf is now happening in about all. It is a very natural "habit" of music, but also pleasent and possibly subjective to what I like. I am now not talking about a bass instrument, but how e.g. a kick drum shows this fundament. But much more. So, at fairly moderate levels (say ~ 87dBSPL or so) for some track I felt the energy in the room, felt my woofers which is easy for me because of the open baffle thing, and started to wonder whether the excursion now not exceeds what I planned with it all. Meaning : more than I ever felt at these levels, like maybe 5mm. Just on hits and giving this lovely pressured feeling (I probably talk BS but this is how it comes across).

With each day passing I get more curious how this can be. And if I were the only one, then fine. But it looks like it works out the same for every one.

Serious warning : I can thus see the level of vastly more energy which must be going into this, while nothing changed anywhere. Say that I'd play really loud and did not expect this, something might break or overheats ?
It reminds me of an XXHighEnd version very long ago (maybe 8 years) that exhibited 16dB of more bass. It won't be that much now, but it could be interesting to see the settings of back then. And I should be able to find the forum posts about it ...

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 10:21:10 am
Quote
Dirty Deeds was the album

I don't know how we manage to do it, but the 3 tracks in my Demo I was talking about, are from that album.

Thank you, Anthony,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: bodiebill on November 13, 2017, 10:45:04 am
Quote
However apart from getting stutters, de Remote Desktop connections is killed.
That won't be related to mentioned settings. Can be the "Use Remote Desktop" setting or possibly that you try this in Normal OS (W10 versions exist which do that but are OK in MinOS). Or the W10 version itself ...

If you have stuttering with these settings, then I'm afraid you'll need to back out a bit (try a lower xQ1 and see how far you can go with it, upwards). Or, try for your situation how the SFS relates (all works in combination with each other).

Strangely enough, when I choose Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1 the RD connection is immediately killed after Play, but with Q3,4,5, = 0,0,0 (and the rest the same) the RD connection stays OK.
So there seems to be some relationship between the issue and the Q settings?


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 10:51:40 am
Quote
Strangely enough, when I choose Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1 the RD connection is immediately killed after Play, but with Q3,4,5, = 0,0,0 (and the rest the same) the RD connection stays OK.
So there seems to be some relationship between the issue and the Q settings?

Interesting, to say the least ...
Dennis, you will be using "a" Processor Core Appointment setting. The 2 numbers you have chosen represent logical cores (hyperthreaded cores included). Try to find a scheme for your processor which explicitly uses two completely physical others (example : 3-5 will always be on a different physical core than 1-2).
Please let me know the result.

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on November 13, 2017, 11:03:12 am
Peter,

Thanks for the new settings! I have only listened to a few tracks but it makes me more confident to stay with v2.09

Since the upgrade from 2.07 I started to dislike the sound from my system which became rather stressed and even ugly.

Before v2.09 things were more balanced tonally and very pleasant to listen for a longer period. This came back with the new settings although a little towards the too relaxed end.

Could be that I was already used to the "stressed" situation though ...

Bert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 13, 2017, 11:46:15 am
Quote
This came back with the new settings although a little towards the too relaxed end.

Hey Bert,

I can imagine your "too relaxed" idea, but it is my advice to give this some time and explicitly watch for detail which now is there from the upper regions (the highest) and how this interacts with the less stressed sound which came fro mthe highs. In other words, how real were those highs previously and :

Quote
Could be that I was already used to the "stressed" situation though ...

that.
Otherwise it is really getting used to because the whole presentation is different as different can be. And if we talk about "right" or "wrong" then both situations (say 2.07 and 2.09) can not be right both (both wrong, yes :)).

Maybe try to focus on what actually lacks. I mean, "too relaxed" could be too subjective as well. Only when it brings you a stuffed ears feeling, it will be explicitly wrong (and that too is related to what you're used to, but alas).

I'll happily receive your final verdict - or again different settings perhaps ?
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: bodiebill on November 13, 2017, 01:37:52 pm
Quote
However apart from getting stutters, de Remote Desktop connections is killed.
That won't be related to mentioned settings. Can be the "Use Remote Desktop" setting or possibly that you try this in Normal OS (W10 versions exist which do that but are OK in MinOS). Or the W10 version itself ...
If you have stuttering with these settings, then I'm afraid you'll need to back out a bit (try a lower xQ1 and see how far you can go with it, upwards). Or, try for your situation how the SFS relates (all works in combination with each other).

Hi Peter,

I only have 2 cores (i3 6100T) and the only core assignments I can choose are 'No Appointment' or 'Core 1-2'. I chose the latter.

It now seems that the RD problem is related to the Q5 setting: Q5=0 no problem, and Q5=1 RD connection disappears.

And as to stuttering, this seems mostly related to the xQ1 setting. I can get no higher than xQ1=3 stutterless. So now the closest I can get to your settings is:

Q1 x xQ1 = 30x3.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,0.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
Appointment Scheme Core 1-2.
OSD Text = Off.
Wallpaper (front and back) On.


Best, Dennis




Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: dsm on November 13, 2017, 03:12:57 pm


Quote
However apart from getting stutters, de Remote Desktop connections is killed.

Hi Dennis,

You need to keep the "persist" button pressed to keep the LAN while unattended (your signature list otherwise). I also need to have  "stop W10 services" unchecked or else I run into troubles and lose connection.

Best,

David



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: bodiebill on November 13, 2017, 04:58:05 pm
Thanks David!
All my files are copied to WAV on a local usb drive first, so I never needed the LAN to persist. And I prefer not to, as it may have an effect on SQ.
I will try to uncheck the W10 services when I find the time...
Cheers, Dennis


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: bodiebill on November 13, 2017, 09:09:36 pm
update: Checking or unchecking WS 10 services does not make any difference for either problem: anything above xQ1=3 still stutters; and Q5=1 still hangs the RD connection, or even the PC. Tweaking continues.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 13, 2017, 09:51:02 pm
Quote
Peter, have you listened to any ACDC with the new settings?  Wow..

Not particularly with these settings, but maybe two weeks ago 3 tracks from my Demo Gallery passed by and I wondered where the nastyness had gone (ADDC is not always the most friendly). But since I was just playing music from a larger playlist, I forgot to revisit it. So I guess I need to now !

I expect guitars with a lot of air in them and with a 2 fold more fundament and even punch. More slick too. Am I right ?

Regards,
Peter

Dirty Deeds was the album and the guitars are just like you say...but the whole presentation is so profound and spectacular and the soundstage sooo very wide and crystal clear. 

A while back I made some fancy vibration isolation stuff for the NOS1a G3 and it cleaned up the mids and highs tremendously without changing any software settings.  The change of sound was not subtle and I had to get rid of my cheap-arse speaker cable for something a bit more suitable to tame the presentation...which worked.  Anyway, these new settings combined with my anti-vibration stuff are just fabulous.

Anthony, it would be great if you told us something more about your vibration isolation stuff. With those results, it's worth knowing. Please.

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: acg on November 14, 2017, 03:31:43 am

Anthony, it would be great if you told us something more about your vibration isolation stuff. With those results, it's worth knowing. Please.

Juan

I will share Juan,but to be honest I have just started on the project.  The way I see it there are three stages and I will start a thread after I have completed the second stage...which is 90% done.  This month hopefully!


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 14, 2017, 07:51:39 am

Anthony, it would be great if you told us something more about your vibration isolation stuff. With those results, it's worth knowing. Please.

Juan

I will share Juan,but to be honest I have just started on the project.  The way I see it there are three stages and I will start a thread after I have completed the second stage...which is 90% done.  This month hopefully!

Thanks Anthony, I'm curious, it seems like an elaborate project.

Regards
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 14, 2017, 08:28:42 am
I only have 2 cores (i3 6100T) and the only core assignments I can choose are 'No Appointment' or 'Core 1-2'. I chose the latter.

It now seems that the RD problem is related to the Q5 setting: Q5=0 no problem, and Q5=1 RD connection disappears.

Hi Dennis,

With two cores you can not set Q3,4,5 to 1 as this hogs two cores for playback and nothing else will work (well). Although I don't have the experience, I think it is best to set none of the three to 1 and then see whether the stuttering helps.
In the Processor Settings section in Settings, there's "Not Switch during Playback" setting. You can engage that and see whether it helps. Higher than 1 is allowed for each and the higher the less stressing on the processor cores.

Otherwise a surprise for you by now : your laptop is far from "capable" for XXHighEnd. This is not about the processor speed, but about possibilities in general. Do yourself a favor, get something decent and be guaranteed that you only thought that XXHighEnd brought you good SQ. You will see ...

Kind regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 14, 2017, 08:36:17 am
Before v2.09 things were more balanced tonally and very pleasant to listen for a longer period. This came back with the new settings although a little towards the too relaxed end.

Bert, maybe I can agree with you. But partly because of an other reason : the highs are too gray.
As far as I can see, this is controlled by the SFS alone. So have this high Q1 setting and the SFS controls the character of the highs and in the end this started to disturb me (too much of a flavor). My SFS is back to 0.9 and the rest is unchanged (see my sig as of this moment).

OK, (for myself) I added a small gag as announced : Q1 can now be 48 and xQ1 can be 50. All still works and I am not sure whether it makes a difference again.

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 14, 2017, 12:45:20 pm
Hi Peter,

I read your so detailed and straightforward report from last Sunday a couple of times and did some intense testing yesterday.
As you described, all seems to be a bit crazy now. And that's the way I see it too. Maybe there are several innovations and changes that are interacting now, building up something special - predominantly in a very positive way, especially with your actual Q settings.

I try to recall my experiences during the last two months:

- First, the 3G upgrade brought already significant changes like more precise, "detached" sound, stronger basses, nice highs. But all this in a more decent way, not as extremly as it is now together with 2.09 and the latest Q settings.
- Release 2.9 brought the biggest impact on this, espacially for highs and basses. As I stated before, I switched a dozen of times between release 2.07 and 2.09, because it wasn't so easy to find a judgement about the "new" SQ.
- Finally your so different new Q parameters brought amazing effects.

I never had activated OSD text since more than a year. So, for sure all this mentioned above does not depend mainly on it. I just tried OSD text yesterday once, for a short time only, because with the actual setup it really has a horrible impact on SQ.

An interesting point probably related to this: For me, as a NAS user, cover art never shows up in unattended mode anyway. Instead of seeing it on the screen I get a short glitch a few seconds after the song starts (when the cover  art should probably show up).
With lower buffer size (like 14x5 or below), there is nothing like this to hear, no glitch at all.
The higher the buffer size the stronger the negativ influence of this kind of disturbing activity obviously is. That is perhaps the reason for the behaviour with OSD text too.

Quote
The last two days I played with :
Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
And just mentioning : Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
And thus OSD Text = Off. Wallpaper (front and back) On.

Peter, with your new settings most of the tracks I listen sound incredibly good now. Trumpets don't sound hard and harsh any more, but airy and very "real" instead. Voices are tremendously present and realistic.
With these new settings it's again a new experience, amazing clear, airy and natural sound, with acoustic instruments too (what's always a good indicator). So that's another big step foreward.

What's so impressing is this extremly dynamic sound. For years I was searching for more dynamics in the tunes. Now, sometimes with some songs I am thinking... "Isn't that maybe too much now, especially for the basses?"
Stong, precise highs usually bring precise and punchy basses. So probably the +6dB in the high frequencies is one of the reasons for that.

It's only the basses what still give me to think now... they become so strong and punchy. That was already my first impression, when I got 2.09 to run on my audio PC. And with the new settings the basses get even more punchy, maybe the additional 16dB you described above.
Maybe that's the point Juan was described above.
For sure, all this depends on the type of music, on the recording, on the acoustics in my living room (I have got stong basses anyway due to the geometrics of the room)., So perhaps it's just the room modes which exagerate now and sometimes become annoying.
Let me say it like this: about 90% of the songs produce spectacular SQ now. It's he minority that causes too strong, umpleasant, sometimes annoying basses. Maybe there is no pleasant way to listen to these songs any more with higher volume (in my room?).

Therefore I was trying different filters yesterday. For the first time, ArcPrediction is an option for me, specially for easy listening. And the second highest custom filter (25010) always works fine. That's the one I was using most of the time anyway. And now again in prooves to be the best for me.

You are right, we have to re-adapt ourselfs too, to a new style of listening. I am on this path since 2.09 has been installed. What makes this a bit difficult are the so huge changes of SQ in such a short period.

Thanks a lot for all and especially for your detailed explanations last weekend.
It's great how openly all these issues are discussed here.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 14, 2017, 03:57:09 pm
Thank you so much for your extensive reporting, Richard. This should be very helpful. And if not today, then "tomorrow".

The Wallpaper thing remains to be intrigueing ...

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Nick on November 14, 2017, 07:06:35 pm
I had chance to listen with the settings your posted Peter.

Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Custom Filter = Highest for 705600.
And just mentioning : Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
And thus OSD Text = Off. Wallpaper (front and back) On.

They have turned arround my opinion in my earlier post a couple of pages back.

I think there is defiinatly somthing good coming together with the high q1 values now that I have q3,4,5 =1, OSD text off and clock res 15ms also set. SQ is very coherent with very high detail levels and impact in highs (stength of cymbels for instance) is better. Purity of the highs could cut glass when music denands (in a good way).

Can I suggest another setting to try which is related to system overhead.

For a while I have been using windows network card interupt moderation settings to tune sound. There can be quite a SQ difference from this. I think it plays to the idea of lowering windows overheads.

Fron memory to set the n/w adaptor interupt moderation rate.

Control panel => device manager => network adaptors => double click the used network card => select advanced tab => in the settings list make sure interupt moderation is enabled => set interupt moderation  rate to the desired value from low to extream or adaptive (I gravitate to a setting of High or medium).

Reading around this the setting controls the hardware interupt frequency the network card generates. There are quite a number of additional settings in the advanced tab that can influance sq, but interupt moderation is interesting to try in combination with the new setting above.

Kind regards,
Nick


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 15, 2017, 04:38:04 am
Super thanks for that, Nick. I guess I am going to try when this all has settled somewhat.

Cheers,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 15, 2017, 06:00:46 am
I don't know how to explain it, but what happens in half of the tracks is something which never occurred before : something like spell-bounding.
OK, that didn't make sense. :hips:

Maybe especially with my "test signals" music (think stuff from Gaudi and 200 others) there can be this "scratching" super saw upsweeping kind of sound. You probably won't what I mean by it becase you'd need to be in the kind of GOA scene (which I am not but this is a successor of House and we all know what that is) ... but think of a scratched LP. No wait, what a DJ does back and forth to make that bzhoop sound, often used in hip-hop. Or at least that is where it emerged, I think. Combine this with "super saw" which is a modern synth technique (sound); Yello in their latest Toy album uses that too in half of the tracks, but (luckily) mildly. Now :

What is totally new in our "SQ" of today is that this leads to Explosion or World's Destrucion or something of that kind. Not sure to what degree it requires my speakers to incur for this, but each time such a thing happens, it is total-shock. It seems to be related to inifite speed (try to find music with super saw synth sound) and how the slower starting on-off sound ends up in a higher frequency on-off and that in half of a second. It comes across as world destruction indeed and this is merely because you don't know where it ends. I just said half of a second, but would this frequency increase - which also carries increase in level - last twice as long, your windows will go out or the ceiling comes down.
This is a bit how I warned for things breaking, which is serious.

So if I now listen for 30 minutes to music, I will have said SH*T! for 30 times outloud - so many times this happens. But again, it is the type of music for a larger part.
Point is : previously not even one time SH*T! happened, so this is all new (and I am really not aware of using new speakers, amplifiers, DACs or USB cables). And again I say : how ever can this be happening.

It also starts to explicitly occur how black the background is. It almost comes across as all totally silent while music just plays (at loud levels). I am sure this contributes to this "world destruction" sense, as all comes as a surprise. And that with music I have played a 100 times if not 1000.

This is about dynamic behavior which explicitly has envelope. Maybe you need to have experience with programming synthesizer sounds, but envelope is how a sound evolves from 0 to maximum level and back to zero (think of one piano key and how it evolves). What now is occurring is that the envelope has many variations under way, and these now can be perceived. Think of this mentioned half of a second developing slowly, has some acceleration underway which also decays (the scratching with super saw sound which latter is on/off in itself) and from half on it accelerates to infinity, luckily suddenly ending or else things would break.
This variation in the envelope was just not there.

Below you see a super simple form of a tone (voice) with a decresing attack (the opposite of what I am talking about) a lowering in level (the decay), a duration of the same level (sustain) and how the sound dies out (release). And that a 500 times in half of a second and this suddenly being discernable.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/images/adsr01.png)

A bit of background :
https://youtu.be/S0a-OPbCI88

And with this example of super saw, try to envision how a large and fast system (with 2.09 XXHighEnd) can make things dangerously for the energy emitted :
https://youtu.be/Lk47wt-ho5A?t=959

OK, now I'm sacked.
Peter






Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on November 15, 2017, 10:46:03 am
As far as I can see, this is controlled by the SFS alone. So have this high Q1 setting and the SFS controls the character of the highs and in the end this started to disturb me (too much of a flavor). My SFS is back to 0.9 and the rest is unchanged (see my sig as of this moment).

The lower SFS saves the day...  at 20 all is boooooring with thin high frequencies, no punch in the bass, no clarity, no warmth and voices without body.

Will play with SFS more but for sure not going back again to the low Q settings... (where did all the detail go and as you mentioned before
 the stuffed ears are back again.)

Bert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: arvind on November 15, 2017, 11:41:11 am
Hi Peter,

After various trials with the Q & SFS, in my set up, the best settings are as per my signature. However Q14/xQ10 also gives very good sound. Maybe marginally lacking in the bass punch, but overall a good balanced sound.

Best regards,

Arvind


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 16, 2017, 07:12:33 pm
When I was writing my last report here Nov. 14th, I had my equipment running continously for 8 days.
The next day I rebooted the audio PC and switched the NOS1-a off and on with an interesting effect: The too hard, a bit annoying basses in some tracks were gone. SQ was well balanced over the complete frequency spectrum. There wasn't this kind of too much dynamics in the sound any more.
So, probably I had kind of low level distortion after running the systems for 8 days, what I could realise well in a few tracks only. I dont't know if it was something like Peter is describing above. For sure it was on a pretty low level and therefore a bit hard to dedect. And I changed the Q parameters a lot during these 8 days and therefore believed that this caused all the changes of SQ.

I had only time 2 or 3 hours to listen then and I don't know if it's the rebooting of the audio PC or the switching off/on of the NOS1-a what brought this positive effect or maybe both.
I will do some more investigation on this when I will be back home next week.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: acg on November 17, 2017, 06:10:10 am
Yep, you've gotta power cycle both the nos1a and the pc or the sound eventually degrades.   I don't really know why.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 17, 2017, 06:59:42 am
Quote
Yep, you've gotta power cycle both the nos1a and the pc or the sound eventually degrades.

Or maybe power cycle the PC and unplug and replug the USB cable.

There's so much going on with that USB ... you don't want to know. If you already look at the DC Offset on the NOS1-USB and how this is influenced by the USB cable with the PC Running ... So when DC Offset is in order it can only point at some groundloop going on (but now over the interlinks). So envision what actally happens when that groundloop can be broken by replugging the USB cable.
Btw, normal situation of breaking the groundloop is by detaching the connection to the output (which is the power to the DAC or to the DAC board Sw#2).

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 17, 2017, 08:10:44 am
Peter, after some time without unplugging the NOS1 I observe a variation of the dcoffset from the reference value, 0.77 / 0.55 to 0.98 / 0.79, maybe more. When I unplug the dac, the reference value only lasts a few minutes and then gradually increases until reaching the aforementioned values ​​where it remains stable with small oscillations. I can not say that due to this I notice a deterioration of the SQ but it is certain that when the dac, the Audio Pc and the USB cable are unplugged for one hour or two, an improvement of the SQ is noticed.

In some post I read that it has to do, as you mention, with the grounding of the USB cable and the dac. I have removed the black wire from the grounding of the NOS1. Previously I was isolating the USB cable to avoid touching the Audio Pc chassis, then this isolation was combined with the Intona and now it continues with the G3. Are normal these variations of the dcoffset because they are the consequence of the absence of grounding? Is there a point when the variation of the dcoffset is stable (more or less) in the highest values when should all be unplugged?

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 17, 2017, 01:09:08 pm
Quote
In some post I read that it has to do, as you mention, with the grounding of the USB cable and the dac.

Hi Juan,

I don't think that I said - or am saying that (but with the notice that your sentence is hard to interpret by me, which by coincidence counts for the whole of your post (somehow)).

All I can say for real is "No, I never said that" and thus I can't bring value into your suggestions.

Quote
I observe a variation of the dcoffset from the reference value, 0.77 / 0.55 to 0.98 / 0.79, maybe more. When I unplug the dac, the reference value only lasts a few minutes and then gradually increases until reaching the aforementioned values ​​where it remains stable with small oscillations.

That this change is occurring is known (also see your email (for everybody) about the New DC Offset), but that this is under the influence of "ground loop" or what it is, is/was not known to me. As you will recognize from the email, I say "when cold" and "when warmer is may vary 1mV).

What's interesting with this, is that this can well be "caused" by the galvanic isolation in the USB chain. "Caused" between quotes and merely a "happens since".

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 17, 2017, 05:48:53 pm
Hi Peter, I thought I had read something about it but I'm sure I've mistakenly mixed some concepts like galvanic isolation of the USB cable and removing the ground from the NOS1.

I changed the SFS again to 0.90 and the driver to 8ms and yes, it disappears what seemed to me a slight intrusion of the bass in the mids area. I have to keep listening but for now the sound is beautiful.

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 17, 2017, 07:09:20 pm
Hi Juan,

Quote
I thought I had read something about it but I'm sure I've mistakenly mixed some concepts like galvanic isolation of the USB cable and removing the ground from the NOS1.

Maybe not, but it is a bit different (from my understanding of what you thought) :

With the black wire: connected (Sw#3 down) the Galvanic Isolation in the i2s section is violated "halfly". Notice that I now mention "i2s" because that's where it is and always has been, while today we also have "USB Interface" galvanic isolation by means of the Phisolator. And I don't think I ever even thought of any "black wire" impact regarding this. It should be Up for the best isolation anyway.
In the past the i2s isolation has sure been mentioned by me in relation with the black wire (but thus was just called "Galvanic Isolation").

Does this help a little ?

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 17, 2017, 07:26:00 pm
Thank you Peter. Yes, it helps.

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 18, 2017, 12:01:23 pm
Hi all,

It now slowly becomes clear that some other new dimension (?) is in order : the general dynamics of the track itself. To this you could respond "sure, of course", but don't be so fast ...

It seems to be about the same thing as all being way more separated (each instrument has its own space and does not interfere with the others at all), combined with a "more black" as how I perceive it myself. Try to envision this (and for a few Dutch, use Drukwerk - Je loog tegen mij (no Remasters please) as an example) :

First off, basses are so extreme and in the middle of your face, that once again this can't be but still is so. This was not so at all. But mind you, this is agains the relative silence of the remainder. This is what is occurring throughout. But what's far more startling is this :

The music plays along and at times the drummer seems to jump from his stool and with his whole body as weight behind the sticks, he smashes his drums. He does this at the breaks most of the time (a break is one measure where e.g. all the toms are passed from high to low ending on the floor tom - and this instead of the normal rythm).
The fact that this is (way) louder is sooo true (realistic). But you only realize that this is suddenly there when you (suddenly) hear it.
I have played this album numerous times, and suddenly it is working out like this.

It is nothing about highs which stand out and emphasize (I say it again "what highs ?" so the effect must be real. It includes the pressure of the drums, just as that it shows the force on plucked bass guitar strings.
So the dynamic range of an instrument has increased, and not by little.

Regards,
Peter



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: music33 on November 18, 2017, 05:17:18 pm
Dumb question - how do I turn off OSD Text, when I click on it nothing happens, the color of the on/off switch remains black.
thanks, dave


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 18, 2017, 05:58:50 pm
Dave, Possibly you have activated "Don't do anything with Coverart" (in de Coverart section) ? If that is the case, your screen will be black with nothing shown on it, during Unattended Playback.

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: music33 on November 18, 2017, 06:19:54 pm
yes, i have 'don't do anything with coverart' activated, does that mean OSD Text is off? thanks, dave


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: acg on November 18, 2017, 09:53:43 pm

So the dynamic range of an instrument has increased, and not by little.


Yep, completely agree and I did not think this was ever likely to be achieved by changing one or two buttons in software.  For me the change is extraordinary...like wow kind of extraordinary...like changing speakers.



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 19, 2017, 04:16:16 am
yes, i have 'don't do anything with coverart' activated, does that mean OSD Text is off? thanks, dave

Dave, it should be, yes.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 27, 2017, 02:56:34 pm
Hi there,

during the last days I listened a lot with release 2.09 using Q parameters like:
Q1 x xQ1 = 30x40.
Q3,4,5, = 1,1,1.
SFS = 20.
ClockRes = 15ms.
Appointment Scheme = 3-5.
OSD Text = Off.
Custom Filter = second highest or highest for 705600

Challenged by a pretty good new DAC, I borroughed from a friend, which is doing internally PCM to DSD conversion, I was trying different Q parameters.

The result:
SFS = 12    sounds magic in my setup!

There is an amazingly big difference to SFS = 20, where the highs were not so clear, as already stated in another post above.
I also tried very small SFS, like 0.9, but for me SQ becomes too thin then and there is kind of a bit of hashness with such small SFS values. The benefit of good highs is already there with SFS=12.

What's also good now:  There isn't any glich to hear any more after a few seconds now.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 27, 2017, 03:32:55 pm
Quote
The result:
SFS = 12    sounds magic in my setup!

Hey Richard - this is very much welcomed.
Yesterday I had the plan to try something else today for the low SFS which I had at 0.7 the past days and which I switched back to 0.9 yesterday already. But still a sense of what you are talking about : a bit too thin.
So in is your SFS = 12 and tonight we'll see what it brings.

Thank you !
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 27, 2017, 05:09:32 pm
Hi Peter,

SFS = 10 is also worth a try. Already pretty more "analythical" SQ than with SFS = 12. So, between 14 and 10 SQ changes pretty much.
Below 10 I didn't find values with such good sound for my ears.
I am looking foreward to your experiences...

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 28, 2017, 05:33:39 am
Richard,

The SFS=12 did not last very long for me. I took it back to 8 and there it remained. Pretty good balance between all, still being dynamic and sounding sufficiently full at the same time. I will try 10 thouh.

Great stuff - thanks !
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Stanray on November 28, 2017, 11:18:54 am
Last night I tried SFS settings between 0 and 20.

<6: the sound is detailed, but also a bit "detached".

>14: it becomes too "mushy".

So I settled for SFS=10 and that seems balanced (in my system, for now and with the music I played).

Stanley


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 28, 2017, 01:18:35 pm
Hi Peter,

I tried SFS=8 once more.
Yes, if you prefer cristal clear highs, then that's the better solution.
Mercedes Sosa's "Missa Criolla" for example sounds perfect and very real with this setting.

When I listen to the 24bit version of St Germain's album "St Germain", I prefer SFS=12. So the highs don't dominate the scene too much and there are more mids and a fuller body in the sound and stronger basses too.

What's good to know now: With such high buffers, the big changes of SQ happen with SFS between 8 and 14.
I will do more listening with different SFS settings within that range.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 28, 2017, 01:31:09 pm
Hi Stanley,

that's funny. You and me posted quite the same in the same minute independently. I read your post after I had posted mine.

You: SFS=10
Me: SFS=8, SFS=12

This can't be accidentally.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 28, 2017, 02:24:28 pm
Quote
that's funny. You and me posted quite the same in the same minute independently.

Hahaha, maybe it looks like that when you want to see that. But I see one "bit" more. :) 01 vs 11.

Quote
I read your post after I had posted mine.

That we, of course, believe.

Quote
With such high buffers, the big changes of SQ happen with SFS between 8 and 14.

And that seems to be key. Well found !
Thank you Stanley, thank you Richard.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 28, 2017, 02:26:00 pm
My vote goes to SFS: 10. For me it is the point at which the treble begins to lose the aggressiveness at the same time that there is no appreciable loss of clarity and dynamics.

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 28, 2017, 02:56:05 pm
:)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Stanray on November 28, 2017, 03:05:22 pm
Hi Stanley,

that's funny. You and me posted quite the same in the same minute independently. I read your post after I had posted mine.

You: SFS=10
Me: SFS=8, SFS=12

This can't be accidentally.

Kind regards
Richard

I hope it is not accidentally, Richard
It's time to enjoy music in stead of comparing settings  :soundsgood:

Kind Regards,
Stanley


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 28, 2017, 11:43:43 pm
Hi Peter,

in your signiture I can see "USB3 from Mobo". What's the best way to have it like this with my Stealth Mach II?
I still have the USB cable attached to one of the plugs in the rear.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 05:03:15 am
Quote
I still have the USB cable attached to one of the plugs in the rear.

Richard - I have it there too.
The other day (3-4 months back ?) a few of us experiemented with the front side, but IIRC that was rejected by all. I think mine was in there for 45 seconds or so.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 05:08:18 am

I don't know whether it was my Tuesday Evening Ears or something else, but yesterday at the SFS of 10 I had the idea that the whole "thing" changed. All as fresh as could be (no distortion) but/and in a sense that all seemed way louder too. Even at still playing at ~4.5dB softer levels because the beginning of the evening, I received the question "isn't that loud" ? And in advance of that I thought the same already.

So SFS=12 is too dull. SFS=8 was fine and good to stay. But SFS=10 jumps out regarding everything ? It is only that I don't trust the "loudness". That could - or even should indicate "distortion".
What do you guys think of this ?

And who is first in going to use the first digit ? (like 10.4)  :)

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 29, 2017, 08:07:01 am
Peter, yesterday I've been using 8.98 to try something between 8 and 10. I'll be testing it today but the first impression is good. Still vivid sound and full of detail.

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 29, 2017, 01:48:13 pm
Peter, I wonder why SFS values between 10 and 11 are allowed, but between 11 and 12 are not. What's the reason for that?

I am testing now between 10 and 11, with good results.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 03:58:33 pm
Quote
Peter, I wonder why SFS values between 10 and 11 are allowed, but between 11 and 12 are not. What's the reason for that?

Hi Richard,

I am not aware of this. Still not, because over here this is just possible (like 11.70).

?

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 29, 2017, 04:47:38 pm
Hi Peter,

when I enter for SFS 11 it's changed to 10
When I enter 11.7 it's changed to 10.7

Here it looks like that there is no uneven digit allowed before the "." except 1

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 04:49:28 pm
It is not that your Max SFS limits it somehow ?
Btw, you say Enter - I go out with Tab. Maybe there is a difference in that ?


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 29, 2017, 05:56:19 pm
Hi Peter,

when I enter for SFS 11 it's changed to 10
When I enter 11.7 it's changed to 10.7

Here it looks like that there is no uneven digit allowed before the "." except 1

Kind regards
Richard

Richard, the same happens to me. That's why I use 8.98 in place of 9

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 06:49:13 pm
Do you guys actually TYPE the number ? So, backspace to erase all in the field, type 9, tab, done.
I have 9.00 in there right now. No problem at all.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 29, 2017, 06:59:34 pm
Hi there,

The max SFS value is set high enough.

I now also tried to to change the SFS values with tab. Same thing: uneven digits before the "." are changed to the next lower even one.

What's interesting: When I do this during music playback, after pressing Alt X, uneven values are accepted, but will be rounded down to the next even afterwards.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on November 29, 2017, 07:09:59 pm
Peter, I can enter 9 for SFS as you wrote. But, the next time XXHE will be started it will be set to 8.

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on November 29, 2017, 08:00:13 pm
when I enter for SFS 11 it's changed to 10
When I enter 11.7 it's changed to 10.7

Try 11.00 first and then smaller steps... this works.

Bert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 29, 2017, 08:11:01 pm
Peter, Bert, I find it impossible to fix the odd numbers, I tried to do what you say but there is no way

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on November 29, 2017, 08:13:09 pm
when I enter for SFS 11 it's changed to 10
When I enter 11.7 it's changed to 10.7

Try 11.00 first and then smaller steps... this works.

Bert

EDIT: Nope, does not work (it does while playing though...)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 29, 2017, 08:57:59 pm
Peter, I can enter 9 for SFS as you wrote. But, the next time XXHE will be started it will be set to 8.

Kind regards
Richard

Richard, you are completely correct. It does not stick after Unattended Playback ...
:sorry:
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 29, 2017, 09:57:19 pm
As I wasn't able to put odd numbers in the SFS I always thought that it was normal. On the other hand I don't remember if I have ever seen odd values, except 1.
Peter, can you take a look to my signature to see if there is something wrong, please?

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Stanray on November 30, 2017, 10:07:55 am
Last night I tried SFS settings between 0 and 20.
<6: the sound is detailed, but also a bit "detached".
>14: it becomes too "mushy".
So I settled for SFS=10 and that seems balanced (in my system, for now and with the music I played).

A bit more finetuning:
I now have my SFS=8.80
and the second highest High Filter

Stanley


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 30, 2017, 05:09:20 pm
Last night I tried SFS settings between 0 and 20.
<6: the sound is detailed, but also a bit "detached".
>14: it becomes too "mushy".
So I settled for SFS=10 and that seems balanced (in my system, for now and with the music I played).

A bit more finetuning:
I now have my SFS=8.80
and the second highest High Filter

Stanley

Stanley, 8.80 seems to be a good value. I tried it with the Low Filter and here the sound is great. I'm also trying 8.0/Low F. that makes the sound a bit cleaner. Better for me here. I'm going to stay there for a while to see what happens. The sound in general is sweeter but I still have to see if some details darken

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on November 30, 2017, 05:13:44 pm
Peter, can you take a look to my signature to see if there is something wrong, please?

Hi Juan,

Looks all fine to me. :)

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 30, 2017, 05:31:13 pm
Thanks Peter, I can not think of anything to put the odd numbers. Well, if at any time you find out, please tell me

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on November 30, 2017, 06:55:58 pm
Quote
8.80 seems to be a good value. I tried it with the Low Filter and here the sound is great. I'm also trying 8.0/Low F.

Thanks Juan,

Still at 8.8 here but the Low filter makes it most acceptable for me... no more "overshoot" in the higher mid's.

Bert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on November 30, 2017, 09:10:21 pm
Quote
8.80 seems to be a good value. I tried it with the Low Filter and here the sound is great. I'm also trying 8.0/Low F.

Thanks Juan,

Still at 8.8 here but the Low filter makes it most acceptable for me... no more "overshoot" in the higher mid's.

Bert

 :)

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 01, 2017, 10:05:12 am
Quote
Low filter makes it most acceptable for me

Now that. :smirk:
Does anyone know how many freakin' combinations this program has ?

:careful:


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 01, 2017, 10:36:24 am
Quote
Low filter makes it most acceptable for me

Now that. :smirk:
Does anyone know how many freakin' combinations this program has ?

:careful:


I remember my times with valves and the madness of trying one or another looking for the best sound. The amount of money spent!  Once that I accepted that the fun of this hobby is in the search, since the perfect sound does not exist, the XXHE finding was a fundamental discovery. The "change of valves" now is for free.

By the way, I'm still happy with 8.00 / Low Filter :) although 8,80/LF is also a good combination depending on the piece of music.

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 01, 2017, 11:41:54 am
Thank you Juan.
I will try the Low filter tonight.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 02, 2017, 02:54:38 pm
SFS = 8.8 and 705.6 / Low Filter sounded superb here.
An if anything, more bass again.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 02, 2017, 02:56:59 pm
Thanks Peter, I can not think of anything to put the odd numbers. Well, if at any time you find out, please tell me

This is/was so on purpose. It is related to memory allocation. But, I wonder whether this is still a problem (over here all keeps working). So the next version allows the odd numbers.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 02, 2017, 03:37:20 pm
Thanks Peter, I can not think of anything to put the odd numbers. Well, if at any time you find out, please tell me

This is/was so on purpose. It is related to memory allocation. But, I wonder whether this is still a problem (over here all keeps working). So the next version allows the odd numbers.

That's ok Peter, I wait for the next version.

SFS = 8.8 and 705.6 / Low Filter sounded superb here.
An if anything, more bass again.

Good that you also found great sound with the Low Filter. However I find that 8.80 gives the impression that the sounds float in an inconcrete way,  it was difficult to locate exactly where they come from in the soundtage. Something similar to when the sound is out of phase. That problem does not exist here with 8.00 / LF. Possibly it depends on that we have different systems. Anyway, it's a big step forward with the latest settings in v2.09,  the use of SFS around 8.00 and the Low Filter.

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 02, 2017, 04:22:48 pm
Quote
I find that 8.80 gives the impression that the sounds float in an inconcrete way,  it was difficult to locate exactly where they come from in the soundtage.

Juan, I said 8.8 but I think I meant to say 8.0. I can't even check it any more because I was testing with the odd numbers and it got overritten with a lot of 9's. LOL
I shall try both tonight, if I don't forget.

Regards and thanks,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 02, 2017, 04:25:03 pm
 :veryhappy:

Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 03, 2017, 10:30:57 am
So ... Yesterday I tried some huge combination buffer settings and thought it was quite fine. But technically not because of unsynchronized activities at the end of a track etc. (instead of the next track beginning, the last buffer of the previous track played again and more anomalies), but anyway it played. This was also my mistake to do, because now I did not like SFS = 8.00 any more. Also not 8.80 (worse I'd say).
Then I went back to my formerly chosen 10 ...

So right in the first second I notice it again. There is something (very) special with 10.00 going on. It is in the sense where I left off a track with 8.80 (paused) and proceeded with it where it left off, with 10.00, I couldn't even recognize it as the same track.
Highs seem to be infinitely more but also of explicit good quality (at some stage I measured and saw I was playing at 94dBSPL with is fairly loud :yes:).

Don't ask me why this is.

As I reported a few days ago, I already noticed this. But now it was with the 705.6 Low filter (few days ago it was the High(est)).

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on December 03, 2017, 11:01:08 am
Hi there,

SFS=8.00 or 8.80 sounds pretty good but demands a mid or low filter. Therefore I am not really convinced about it.

SFS=10 with second highest filter is good too. Adding just 0.24, so SFS=10.24 already sound pretty different, not as good as 10.00

I still wonder why release 2.09 reacts in such a sensible way to small changes of SFS (compared to previous XXHE releases).
Peter, could you give us an explanation for this?

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 05, 2017, 01:39:21 pm
Hi All,

Day before yesterday I found that SFS=10.0 could be disturbing in really lesser compressed albums. Think Beatles (no Remaster). Too much highs in related to something missing right under that (lower highs ?) with a still very profounding mid. So say that this shows a gap above the mid.

Then I changed to 10.1 (because of someone proposing that - I forgot who, but thanks) and thought it was an improvement. Then changed to 10.2 and again found that working very well and I left it at that. Not sure whether there really was a difference between 10.1 and 10.2. But 10.0 really was too much of highs.
Yesterday I was happy with this 10.2 throughout.

It occurs to me that this is so much "on limits" that I can very much imagine that this can not work out the same on so differing systems as a whole, which most of us must have.

What keeps on occurring is how good the drums are. So much differentiation between everything (I am not talking cymbals).

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on December 05, 2017, 02:48:04 pm

It occurs to me that this is so much "on limits" that I can very much imagine that this can not work out the same on so differing systems as a whole, which most of us must have.


It seems that my system is reacting positively on the changes as well... :-)

Playing louder as well (more forward) but well balanced (less Loudness effect).

Not playing any serioulsly compressed material though (I can't stand the noise so to speak).

Bert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 05, 2017, 07:53:42 pm
I've been trying for the last two days to see the positive of SFS 10.00 (Peter's psychological influence is always inevitable). Peter expresses it  better than me but what I thought was more or less that the sound seemed very clear but lacking in body. Elegant but too thin. Yes, it seems that SFS 10.20 has that body that is missing at 10.00 but nevertheless lacks still something. Maybe we should look for somewhere, not only in the SFS.

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Arjan on December 05, 2017, 10:18:03 pm
Hi,
Try Q3 and Q5 on 0.
For me that always at some extra roundness.
Regards, Arjan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 06, 2017, 09:37:02 pm
Hi,
Try Q3 and Q5 on 0.
For me that always at some extra roundness.
Regards, Arjan

Thanks Arjan, I've been testing those Q settings and it has been an useful suggestion. With Q3:0, Q5:0 the bass is too big in my system. I made some changes, now I have Q1:30, xQ1:40, Q3:0, Q4:1, Q5:1. SFS:10.16.  Filter:705600 Low. Still big bass but much better. I'll keep listening.
 :xx:

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 07, 2017, 08:46:43 am
Try Q3 and Q5 on 0.
For me that always at some extra roundness.

Arggh, I forgot to test this yesterday.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 07, 2017, 11:02:54 am
With the new settings it seems necessary to increase the volume one step and sometimes two to get the best SQ. The difference between the optimal volume level and the next lower level is surprising. Previously the optimum level in my case was -19.5db and now it is -18db and sometimes up to -16.5db

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 11, 2017, 10:18:59 am
It seems that it's very quiet here. Well, surely Peter is preparing some surprise. Meanwhile I'm still experimenting with the settings to find the best SQ. So far the best I have found is:
Q1=30 Q3=0, Q4=1, Q5=1, xQ1=40
SFS: 10.20 (max. 120)
ClockRes: 15ms
Driver v1.0.4. 4ms
Custom Filter: 705600 Low

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: briefremarks on December 11, 2017, 10:45:04 pm
Juan,

I have been experimenting with settings as well, and have essentially settled for the moment on the same settings as you except with Q5=0.  I remember when the Stealth PC first came out, the suggestion was to use Q3/4/5 = 0/1/0; which had worked well for me prior to the G3/Lush upgrade.  Q3/4/5 = 0/1/0 seems to produce more body/realism without any loss of detail or dynamics.

Ramesh


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 12, 2017, 08:20:17 am
Hey ...

Each time I go for something else than Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1 for me the sound is too gray. But mind you, this is all rtelated to the Lush. So with 1,1,1 there's more sparkle and the Lush requires that (for me). Maybe not with each and every other setting, but then I did not find those ...

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 12, 2017, 08:37:03 am
OK. Yesterday we were explicitly talking about the eerie good SQ we have here now with btw by now and each day a different perception from it. But I imagine that this is because it is all so fragile and on the verge of being completely real. Hence, all what deviates from that makes it unreal and very noticable for that reason. I also have the idea that my system won't do any more with less than an hour of "breaking in" for the day. After that, all can go to infinity. There's just no way things can sound bad after that period of playing.

Q1 = 30x40
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
SFS = 9.0 (:sorry:)
ClockRes = 15
Core 3-5
No OSD Text
Coverart Wallpaper  in use
(NOS1 Driver = 16ms)

About the SFS = 9.0 : well, I just finally set it to that because 8.0 did not satisfy me and 10.x is too much of it (highs). I did not want to have the 9.0 because you can't (yet) but I did it after all. And now I seem to be overly satisfied. Anyway, anything close to 9.0 may not matter - I don't know (did not try).

About the change each day :
For me surely this is about the operating of my ears or maybe mood (not sure about this latter, but we know this matters too and although my mood is almost always good, gradations of it exist).
The last days I very deliberately did nothing about the "hardware" as such, when I found it to be less that the day before. So I have adopted the situation about mood and ears. And indeed, the next day all can be "100%" again. But it is difficult because this breaking in which is required each day is something to "bite through" instead of letting it destroy your mood and arrive in a downwards going circle.

When writing the above I feel like I just described how voodoo operates. And maybe it just all is a state of mind. Well, then I don't care. :) And you suit yourselves, haha.

I hope we're having fun !
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on December 13, 2017, 03:48:26 pm
Juan,

I have been experimenting with settings as well, and have essentially settled for the moment on the same settings as you except with Q5=0.  I remember when the Stealth PC first came out, the suggestion was to use Q3/4/5 = 0/1/0; which had worked well for me prior to the G3/Lush upgrade.  Q3/4/5 = 0/1/0 seems to produce more body/realism without any loss of detail or dynamics.

Ramesh

Hi Ramesh, I think we are all close between SFS 8.0 and 10.5, the other settings are similar and it is difficult to know which one sounds better.

It is true what Peter says about the state of mind. Sometimes we find a satisfactory sound and that makes us be in a good mood. The opposite also happens. Personally I appreciate that this hobby is able to have that influence on my mood. This allows me the possibility of recovering if I feel bad.

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 21, 2017, 03:23:19 pm
Hi,

I changed my SFS back to 10.20 fairly soon after the second day with 9.00 which made me think the sound was "ugly". I recall that I had moments of thinking the same on the first day of using 9.00. It depends on the music.
After a week of being back on 10.20 I still like it.

Quote
About the SFS = 9.0 : well, I just finally set it to that because 8.0 did not satisfy me and 10.x is too much of it (highs).


I quite explicitly decided that the "too much of it" counts for a few albums which I then will accept, *if* it already isn't about moisture, temperature, draft, ears or mood. IOW, the past week has been fine throughout.

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on December 29, 2017, 04:01:12 pm
All,

Yesterday was the 4th day that I played with an SFS of 20.19.
The .19 is a residue from the 10.19 I use prior to that, and I did that deliberately.

In my perception this brings even more highs than the "too much of it" I reported about 10.20, earlier on, but now the highs are not nasty. I actually love this sound. The level of (good) detail is wild.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: BertD on January 03, 2018, 11:30:08 am
I thought I had too much bass with previous settings or no bass at all...

SFS of 20.19 works very nicely here as well cleaning up the "too much bass" with the lower SFS settings.

And here too, I hear clearly detail never heard before without nastyness.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on January 03, 2018, 07:03:18 pm

All,

Yesterday was the 4th day that I played with an SFS of 20.19.
The .19 is a residue from the 10.19 I use prior to that, and I did that deliberately.

In my perception this brings even more highs than the "too much of it" I reported about 10.20, earlier on, but now the highs are not nasty. I actually love this sound. The level of (good) detail is wild.

Regards,
Peter


I thought I had too much bass with previous settings or no bass at all...

SFS of 20.19 works very nicely here as well cleaning up the "too much bass" with the lower SFS settings.

And here too, I hear clearly detail never heard before without nastyness.


A lot of detail and excellent bass. The only problem with such a high SFS is that sometimes the volume change does not work or it takes a long time.

Regards,
Juan

Edit: Lately the volume level is working fine, restarting XXHighEnd fixed up the problem


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: briefremarks on January 04, 2018, 08:51:35 am
I've been listening for a few days with SFS at 20.19 and must say that SQ is really beautiful, as is the music I've been listening to.  Might just leave things as is for now.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Arjan on January 07, 2018, 03:11:24 pm
All,
and now try Arc Prediction...
regards


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on January 07, 2018, 05:45:21 pm

All,
and now try Arc Prediction...
regards


With Arch Prediction it seems a more vivid and dynamic sound, it even seems as if the volume has gone up at least one step. Also the bass seems bigger and so the soundstage.

I'll keep listening. Thanks Arjan.

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on January 07, 2018, 07:53:13 pm
OK, going to try that too, right now ...
(with the lower SFS numbers I liked it for the better for a while, but this was with 2.08, I think).

:wacko:


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on January 08, 2018, 10:02:11 am
Hey ...


All,
and now try Arc Prediction...
regards


Hmm ... Might it happen that we all like this, then it could be that we are all subject to damaged ears, OR we just don't understand what to listen for any more. Well, something like that.
My experience from yesterday :

For a first hour I kept on noticing how dry and short the sound was compared to my Custom 705600 "Mid" setting which I use for the past 4 weeks or so. So, good.

Then I ran into a first album of which I thought that the metal reverberance sounded like something which is broken.

Once recognizing this sound, I kept on hearing it in everything, but without being sure whether something sounds (oscillating) broken, or whether I need to re-learn to listen.

This was all with more commercial music which should not sound very special. Still it did. So actually I am looking forward to tonight's listening session where I will play my regular test-signal music. It should be way wrong or jaw dropping good.
Maybe my ears had an offset yesterday. :)

Does anyone recognize something of this ? The sound is suddenly completely different and it slipped through my mind that I wanted to tell you I had new amps and new speakers. And probably a new DAC. Completely unrecognizable, but still in a fashion that I suspect to be able to decide it is not wrong. That takes more days of listening though.

Thanks !
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Arjan on January 08, 2018, 11:41:34 am
Hi Peter,
Thanks for trying Arc Prediction. I tried all the custom filters and for a long time I loved Low. But after more listening I must say the Mid might be the best for me.

But then I tried Arc Prediction again and for me this sounded really honest. That is how I would call the SQ, the most honest I have ever heard. You could call it dry, but it is o so real.

The only area I am not sure about is the bass. It is sometimes, depending on the type of music, a bit overwhelming. But on the other hand in todays music that is sometimes the case. So maybe it is in the mix.

regards


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on January 08, 2018, 12:53:09 pm
Quote
You could call it dry


Arjan, dry (and short) are positives for me. It allows all to play more in its own space.
In itself this is not new (to XXHighEnd settings) but it relates to the Custom filters which inherently "blend" more. I don't think this will be noticed when going from Arc Prediction to Custom, but the other way around it sure will. It also implies for the more spacious sound, which always occurs to me when switching back to Arc Prediction. I guess this is how I liked the first hour very much, including all the crazy new (background) sounds.

The downside seems to be in the "metallic" reverberation of which I could not find the source, unless emerging in mid-air. So there's something in me that's telling that with Arc Prediction and further new behaviour and settings, there's a razor sharp delimiting of individual frequencies which collide and interact in mid air.
While this is probably some kind of whishful thinking, the other 50% of my thinking goes to audible aliasing (imaging). That this is now audible should be for the same reason, although this is also a technical (filtering thing. Still I can not detect it like being (additional) technical flaw. And a fact that it would be an acoustical thing is only good because apparently we made something audible again, that wasn't. It only should not be the wrong thing.

Btw, throughout it reminded my at my ever back "statement" that a steeldrum became very profound, with a response of Stanley (Stanray) that he always uses that instrument to test SQ. So the music seems to exhibit these kind of sounds now, as a flavour. And that would not be good. And then again, yesterday it alreasy slipped my mind that it actually was so goo all 'n all, that this steepdrum thing would be something for me to solve (somehow).

OK, if nobody recognizes this, it is/was just me.
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on January 09, 2018, 01:14:35 am
In my opinion with Arc Prediction the sound is presented with much more detail and in an almost holographic way. My understanding of Peter's concepts of dry and short goes in the direction of clarity and precision in placement in the sound scene. In the long run that clarity becomes fatiguing and may appear as with a metallic personality. For me this sound is almost perfect. However, Iíd say that there is some kind of distortion of the harmonics or perhaps a lesser presence of some of them. Iíd say that there is a preponderance of the harmonics that give a more harsh character to the sound and a lesser presence of the harmonics that give a rounder or warmer character to the sound.

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on January 09, 2018, 07:42:14 am
Thank you for sharing Juan.
I myself am not sure by now, except for that I am sure my hearing is off. Possibly that Australian flu going around ...
So if it gets quiet in here, you know what happened. :swoon:

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on January 09, 2018, 08:42:47 am

Thank you for sharing Juan.
I myself am not sure by now, except for that I am sure my hearing is off. Possibly that Australian flu going around ...
So if it gets quiet in here, you know what happened. :swoon:

Regards,
Peter


Hey Peter, take care of yourself, we need your ears almost more than ours. Take a lot of orange juice and rest. Get well,

Best regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: manisandher on January 09, 2018, 10:21:06 am
I've settled on the following:

non-MQA: Custom Low
MQA: Arc Prediction

If I forget to change to AP with MQA, I realise within a few seconds of the music playing that something sounds 'off'.

Mani.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on January 23, 2018, 09:13:03 pm
Well I havn't commented here for a while. I now have the Lush and after a month much prefer it over the Clairixa, difference not being as large as perhaps some felt between the two but definitely more music.

I've played with all settings suggested and currently enjoy settings per my signature. I do prefer Arc filter over custom even changing from Low 705600 to Mid 705600 as per Peter's suggestion. Arc has a clarity over the custom filter settings. Anyway still listening. Running SFS at 20.19 has mean't no problems with running certain Hi Res files.

Music has never sounded better in my hot summer weather.

Spring is coming for those in the North!!!!

Robert


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 14, 2018, 09:13:49 am
Hi all,

3 days ago I set back my SFS from 20.19 to 10.19. It took me a month or so but eventually I couldn't stand the, say, sharpness of 20.19. It just was too much of it.
Receiving complaints from the family now and then as well, in the end did it.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Telstar on February 14, 2018, 06:36:53 pm
- SPL seems louder at same volume settings; even at -36dB I can fill a pretty large room.

This i generally a BAD thing IME.

But I'm still reading the long thread, maybe some other setting improved it.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Telstar on February 15, 2018, 02:03:11 am
3 days ago I set back my SFS from 20.19 to 10.19.

How did you and to 0.90 from there? I'm still missing a step or two...


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 15, 2018, 08:23:19 am
Telstar - It is in this topic. Best is to use ctrl-f for search the page and then search for [space]0.9
Then you run into them.

If that is what you meant ... :)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on February 16, 2018, 02:17:06 am
Tried 10.19 but back to 20.19. 10.19 feels less detailed, less bass impact for me. I may be deafer to sharpness from industrial noise over the years. Once again depends on recording. Melody Gardot's latest live release in 24/48 is excellent.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 16, 2018, 06:00:39 pm
Thank you for the feedback, Robert.

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on February 17, 2018, 11:36:36 am
It is difficult to choose between the two SFS settings (10.19 / 20.19), but with some of my references to check the quality of highs and lows such as Bach's Tocata and fugue in d minor by Marie Claire Alain, it's perceived clearly that the highs have some aggressiveness with 20.19. In addition there seems to be more depth of the sound scene with SFS 10.19. This does not mean that with other less extreme recordings the preference would be 20.19
https://www.discogs.com/es/Bach-Marie-Claire-Alain-Toccata-Fugue-En-R%C3%A9-Mineur-Chorals-Sch%C3%BCbler-Passacaglia-Fugue/release/9420156 (https://www.discogs.com/es/Bach-Marie-Claire-Alain-Toccata-Fugue-En-R%C3%A9-Mineur-Chorals-Sch%C3%BCbler-Passacaglia-Fugue/release/9420156)

Regards,
Juan


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 17, 2018, 12:43:43 pm
Thank you Juan.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: phantomax on February 18, 2018, 09:20:40 am
Tried 10.19 but back to 20.19.

Me too. Probably the tubes in the chain soften in some way the highs but with 10.19 I perceive  less spark.

Maxi


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 18, 2018, 10:57:17 am
And you too, thank you for your feedback, Maxi.

The less sparkle with SFS = 10.19 compared with 20.19 is undoubtedly so. Maybe I should let resurrect my ears more because I still think it is related to a cold I suffer from for ... I forgot. Many weeks.

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: toddn on February 18, 2018, 07:59:01 pm
I canít go back from SFS 20.19 & Arc Predict on 2.09 it is just too good!! Crazy resolution and massively deep & wide soundstage with every performer thoroughly grounded in their own space. Truly intoxicating!

I was, although, bothered by upper frequency harshness though, but for me it was solved by raising Q5 to 3! Now I have none of that harshness and the additional benefit of having more body and weight across the frequency range. Truly the best sound I have ever heard :yahoo: :yahoo:

All my other settings are Peterís current defaults.

Cheers,
Todd


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 19, 2018, 12:45:59 pm
All my other settings are Peterís current defaults.

Hey Todd !
... Yeah, well, um ...

Quote
Scheme = Core 3-5

That's in my sig. But that was NOT was I was using. Somehow I was using 1-3. I don't know when or where that happened, but it must be for a long time already.


Yesterday I tried SFS=20.19 again. Well, right from the start it sounded robotic, and it didn't last for a minute. Then I started thinking : what if I'd change completely different settings from usual. Let's try to change the Core Appointment. OK, I did so (from 1-3 to 3-5) and right away I wondered whether that 1-3 actually was "my setting". Only just now in my sig I found it apparently was not at all.
Do I care much ?

...

Right after the change yesterday, some weird things were happening. The most apparent was "drive". Soon later I thought that the PRaT was abnormal, suddenly. Then I discoverd for the next tracks that all what has been "so-so" but OK, suddenly was wildly good. I thought of having ended up in some trance, but couldn't recognize that for real.
Meanwhile it must have been the best couple of hours ever. Really so !

Btw, still on SFS=10.19 but this is not important at this moment. That is, in the mean time I also applied something else which implies more "sparkle", but I won't tell what it is, yet.


And Q5 to 3 eh ? ... ok ... will try that.
Cheers,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Telstar on February 19, 2018, 04:58:10 pm
Telstar - It is in this topic. Best is to use ctrl-f for search the page and then search for [space]0.9
Then you run into them.

If that is what you meant ... :)

Couldn't find anything. Which SFS do you use now? Is it 0.90 or something else, and why?

Because of my limited memory I have to use VERY LOW SFS so this interests me particularly.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 19, 2018, 05:30:20 pm
Quote
Because of my limited memory I have to use VERY LOW SFS so this interests me particularly.

Hi Telstar,

Yes, I can see that you are low on memory ... if the previous posts already have been shifted out ... :smirk:

Btw, an SFS of 0.08 or 20.0 really won't make a difference for your free memory. It both consumes about nothing (think 100MB for the 20.0).

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on February 20, 2018, 02:41:41 am
Well who would have thought, I tried Core 1-3 with SFS 10.19 and it does work. I also tried core 1-2, 3-4 and 3-5 but not as good as 1-3.

Tried Q5 from 1 to 3 didn't work for me, in fact didn't work with SFS 20.19, Core 3-4 my original. Q5 at 1 now.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on February 21, 2018, 10:08:17 pm
Hi I'm back to my original settings. Found Core 1-3 and sfs 10.19 bland.

Something about sfs 20.19 that is crisp and more life like. Prefer my core 3-4. Anyway back to listening. 



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Telstar on February 22, 2018, 04:39:40 pm
I think I found it, and also where is the two settings everybody is using :)

But I'm gonna start with yours for the generic system first:

Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1
Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60)

then 10.19 (max 120) and then 20.19 and report my finding here. After the weekend. :)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on February 22, 2018, 05:22:53 pm
I was, although, bothered by upper frequency harshness though, but for me it was solved by raising Q5 to 3! Now I have none of that harshness and the additional benefit of having more body and weight across the frequency range. Truly the best sound I have ever heard :yahoo: :yahoo:

Hmm ... for me the Q5 to 3 does not work out, or I must give myself more time to get used to the (over here) more Sllshh sound (too white in the highs).

The Q3,4,5 to other than 1 for me is also a psychological thing because I know what it does (and it has to be for the better - haha).

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 03, 2018, 04:12:43 pm
Hey All,

I didn't tell it right away, but for more than a week now I have my SFS at 5.19 (the .19 fraction is by now the explicit left over from any first who dialed that in) and I'd have to say that from the start of this setting up to now it is the most "pleasing of everything" I ever had (for settings). All as snappy as can be, no harsness anywhere, no idea of wrong cymbal colours ... etc. All good. And the mid-detail is crazy. All flies around through all corners of the room in very holographic fashion ... not-normal.

For those who missed the general idea of the consistency of "crucial" to this sound settings :

SFS thus now at 5.19.
Q3,4,5=1
ClockRes= 15
No OSD Text (Wallpaper Coverart is active)
Core Appointment 3-5 (for any 6 core (hyperthreaded) processor this will be OK)
And for those with a NOS1a/G3 : NOS1 Control Panel buffer size = 16ms.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: arvind on March 04, 2018, 02:02:28 pm
Hi Peter,

The only problem is, which has been discussed in the forum earlier, that after setting SFS to 5.19 & playing a track, the SFS, on its own, shifts to 4.19. Only even nos stay set, odd nos shift to the lower even no.

Best regards,

Arvind


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 04, 2018, 04:25:55 pm
Quote
The only problem is, which has been discussed in the forum earlier, that after setting SFS to 5.19 & playing a track, the SFS, on its own, shifts to 4.19.

Oh, apologies !!
I have this active in my own system for so long by now that I completely forgot it is not in 2.09 yet.
Sorry for the unmeant teasing !!

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on March 04, 2018, 07:06:28 pm
Quote
The only problem is, which has been discussed in the forum earlier, that after setting SFS to 5.19 & playing a track, the SFS, on its own, shifts to 4.19.

Oh, apologies !!
I have this active in my own system for so long by now that I completely forgot it is not in 2.09 yet.
Sorry for the unmeant teasing !!

Best regards,
Peter

By when will it be ready? I would like to test that 5.19  :)

Regards
Juan



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Robert on March 04, 2018, 10:26:19 pm
In terms of xxh 2.09, SFS 20.19 still rules in my system.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 05, 2018, 05:37:04 pm
By when will it be ready? I would like to test that 5.19  :)

Hey Juan,

There is some radical new (cool) feature in 2.10 and I just finished 2 days of continuous work on solving the bugs around that feature. :heat: I suppose tonight's playback session will tell whether I succeeded with this bug-shooting. :smirk:
If so, all what remains is the Release Notes and I envision those to be written somewhere this week.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: juanpmar on March 05, 2018, 05:52:22 pm
By when will it be ready? I would like to test that 5.19  :)

Hey Juan,

There is some radical new (cool) feature in 2.10 and I just finished 2 days of continuous work on solving the bugs around that feature. :heat: I suppose tonight's playback session will tell whether I succeeded with this bug-shooting. :smirk:
If so, all what remains is the Release Notes and I envision those to be written somewhere this week.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter! it sure will be worth the wait
Best regards
Juan



Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Rmalits on March 09, 2018, 02:20:34 pm
Hi there,

I was using SFS 20,19 for a longer time, but I am back to 10,19 again. It sounds somehow smoother, less distorted maybe.
I am looking foreward what 5,19 will bring when available in the next release.

Peter, I would like to ask you if release 1.10 will maybe (hopefully) bring some improvements like:
- wallpaper issue for FLAC files from NAS
- MQA decoding issue, when no appropriate DAC is installed (I still cannot decode MQA higher than 48kHz).

Kind regards
Richard


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 09, 2018, 05:27:09 pm
Hi Richard,

Quote
- wallpaper issue for FLAC files from NAS

You may give me a reminder in the topic about that.
What I recall of it, is that I was waiting for some answer. Maybe I am completely wrong, but check it in the topic of concern to be sure. OK ?

Quote
- MQA decoding issue, when no appropriate DAC is installed (I still cannot decode MQA higher than 48kHz).

Maybe this is similar as this is not related to DACs at all but to a software decoding issue. Please find the (or a) topic about that and add a post in there.

Quote
I was using SFS 20,19 for a longer time, but I am back to 10,19 again. It sounds somehow smoother, less distorted maybe.

Thank you for sharing !

Best regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 10, 2018, 05:28:14 am

And Richard ... 2.10 is about ready, so if you don't respond soon  :dntknw: ...

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: phantomax on March 15, 2018, 06:34:53 pm
Hello,

While waiting for the new version I have been listening with SFS at 6,19 for the last week. I don't know if a difference of one point with 5,16 can be significative but I've found some kind of finesse truly addictive. Let's see   :drool:


Regards

Maxi

PS. Lowering SFS allows me increasing the Qx factor from x15 to x40 again.  SFS at 20,19 ate the end of last tracks.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 15, 2018, 08:22:43 pm
Quote
SFS at 20,19 ate the end of last tracks.

Yes, it is complicated to let all work in "combinations".

Thank you, Maxi.
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: hudesigns on March 19, 2018, 05:18:58 am
Quote
The only problem is, which has been discussed in the forum earlier, that after setting SFS to 5.19 & playing a track, the SFS, on its own, shifts to 4.19.

Oh, apologies !!
I have this active in my own system for so long by now that I completely forgot it is not in 2.09 yet.
Sorry for the unmeant teasing !!

My 2.09 seems to stay on 5.19 without any issue!


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 19, 2018, 08:58:11 am
Quote
My 2.09 seems to stay on 5.19 without any issue!

But maybe not after Unattended playback. And what happens internally I also wonder. But if it stays after Unattended (or maybe just quit and restart XXHighEnd proves the same) then it should work for real. Watch out though : the piece of software arranging for the "even" numbers is explicit (so the even numbers ever back were on purpose) and a little bit buggy. So yes, it can stay by sheer "accident" but if you re-attempt it (change the number back and forth) you may not be able to get there again.

Regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: hudesigns on March 20, 2018, 04:16:53 pm
Quote
And what happens internally I also wonder.

You are right. I found that my memory setting was on "Mixed"! Once I put it on "Contiguous", it jumps back to 4.19 :(

So now I am using "Mixed Contiguous" and 5.19 which seems fine.


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: hudesigns on March 20, 2018, 04:21:53 pm
Peter,
A different question. Is it possible to use remote desktop and Unattended playing? Currently it is not working for me. Attended playing is fine with remote desktop.

Zheng


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 20, 2018, 04:33:33 pm
Quote
And what happens internally I also wonder.

You are right. I found that my memory setting was on "Mixed"! Once I put it on "Contiguous", it jumps back to 4.19 :(

Indeed it is related to that ...


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 20, 2018, 04:40:02 pm
Quote
A different question. Is it possible to use remote desktop and Unattended playing?

Hi Zheng,

Sure !
But it depends a bit on how your network is setup. Generally :

- Take care that you activate "Use Remore Desktop" in XXHighEnd Settings (Services section) while in Normal OS (then boot into MinOS).

- Use the IP address of your Audio playing PC and NOT the PC Name.

I think these are the important settings. But crucial for you is just knowing that it can work (you will find the how easily yourself).
Also notice that the RD functionality of each operating system can be used (IOS, OSX, Android).

Lastly, do not forget to use the XXOSK.exe (is in the XX folder) and "know" that it can size to a square plus it can be resized by means of dragging the title bar.

Kind regards,
Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: hudesigns on March 21, 2018, 07:10:21 pm
Dear Peter,

I tried these steps without much luck. RDC (both iOS and another windows10 machine) with Unattended play seems reeking havoc with the whole machine. Once unattended play is initiated, the following happens:

1. RDC connection is promptly disconnected without any hope to reconnect.

2. XXOSK disappears

3. The track continues to play until finish but system is not waking up

4. Mouse and keyboard lost connections to PC.

5. Once force-rebooted and open XXHE, error message "MemOrg error... try turn off Garbage Collecting" or or "engine #3 not possible..." if you try to play a song.

6. Turn off Garbage Collecting will solve the error. Now Garbage Collecting can be turned back on without any problem.

7. If XXHE is in Normal OS state and Minimize OS is clicked, error messages something like "not possible with XP.."

8. Most likely the machine needs to be power down, reboot, sometimes reboot two times, and deal with "MemOrg" "Garbage collecting" message once more to get system back to normal.

So for now I am OK with PS2 connections with Unattended, which seem more "invisible" to both PC system and SQ.

Best,
Zheng


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: PeterSt on March 22, 2018, 11:29:31 am
Hi Zheng,

Please move this to a new topic (copy-paste); I will respond from there.
In here it is too much off topic now, OK ?
Thanks !

Peter


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Telstar on March 25, 2018, 04:22:38 am
Btw, an SFS of 0.08 or 20.0 really won't make a difference for your free memory. It both consumes about nothing (think 100MB for the 20.0).

Regards,
Peter

I finally understand what did you mean here!
My OOM errors are quite random (and harmless most of the times): the sfs doesnít matter almost at all.
I could be using 20,19 if i wished. When I did xxhe process was using 120MB.

The real problem is that I cannot use straight contiguous :(
Hopefully that will be fixed going to 8gb.
Then v2.10 and the new gold standard of 5,19 will be for me too :)


Title: Re: 2.09 sound quality
Post by: Stanray on May 07, 2018, 01:09:22 pm
A while back I made some fancy vibration isolation stuff for the NOS1a G3 and it cleaned up the mids and highs tremendously without changing any software settings.  The change of sound was not subtle and I had to get rid of my cheap-arse speaker cable for something a bit more suitable to tame the presentation...which worked.  Anyway, these new settings combined with my anti-vibration stuff are just fabulous.

Hi Anthony,

Did you ever found the time to finish your anti-vibration project and/or reported about this?

Kind regards,
Stanley