Right Dave. From far or nearby, that all doesn't matter much. But what about a couple of glasses ?



hehe

Yes. But it was my intention to show it as vague as right now.
Of course there is the option to show it in full (so no transparency) so you can just read the tracks from there (they will be there in 99% of cases), but indicating the active track is a tad too difficult. And as I found, it is somehow informative to show the relative position, which doesn't work with a track name at the bottom + track number ("or a 4 out of 12").

Of course I can apply a bunch of parameters for it.

- FontName
- FontSize
- Italics J/N Bold J/N
- Active Track Bold J/N Underline J/N

and of course

- Show back J/N 

Btw, a next version will show the real back when a back.jpg is present.

Well, if all is right of course.

• It could happen that at startup (merely right after a new version was installed) the XXHighEnd screen did not show. This should not happen anymore in any occasion.
  
  
• Again a situation was found that at Attended the message "Engine #3 did not start within the expected time" came up. Solved.
  
  
• Right after a new install, and at clicking the Library tab for the first time, the area would remain white, solved by another startup of XXHighEnd. Solved.
  
  
• 2 or 3 variations of messages like "Argument out of range" or "index must be within boundaries" (similar) could occur. All solved.
  
  
• At using Hotkeys (like for volume) in Unattended mode, in apparent random situations playback commenced at an earlier played track.
  Although this is a difficult task to accomplish by itself, it looks like all these situations have been solved.
  Possible issue left : the current track starts at the beginning again (but rare).
  
  
• Since playback of a selection of tracks was introduced (well over a year ago, if not almost two), it has always been a problem to show things properly (at Unattended and brining up XXHighEnd) when the last track of the selection is playing. Similarly, this now would workout wrongly regarding the Hotkeys. Solved.
  
  
• Certain errors occurring at startup would incur for them reoccurring over and over. The causes are possibly not all solved, but at least the recognized ones are.
  
  
• An unjustified message could occur at startup about the necessity to restart AutoHotkey. Solved.
  
  
• Quite some messages have been added in order to better track down problems/bugs. So, be aware of a same problem now resulting in another message !
  
  
• The "back" of the Wallpaper coverart now shows the playing track in bold as well as underlined.
  
  

Well I tried a couple of things. The first one is Verdana. But I don't like it. Not fragile enough. Too crowded as well.
I, for now, stick to the second one.

You are definitely right Telstar. But somehow I don't feel it like that. This is part of the speaker and an explicit part of the xover in there. This is mechanical stuff and about resonances and all. It belongs to the speaker.
Of course a digital crossover could do that job (I don't say it is easy, and I don't talk about which is better), but it still should belong to the speaker.

Now we have a problem, because the PC or softwareplayer if you like, does not belong to the speaker, and e.g. the output of my SAT box would not use the xover.
The way pedal does it, is coincidentally a good one. The filter (whavetever) is software wise added as a kind of plugin to the soundcard, and e.g. my SAT box could go through the soundcard just the same, picking up the filter underway.

Add to this all, that when one would apply a filter in a box outside the PC it really should be one with digital input and digital output. And as when done in software or "in" the soundcard, this needs an amplifier per speaker driver. I only want to say, having a box with analogue in and outs but which is digital, is just another DAC (including ADC) and this is the very very last one (being serious about DACS) would want.

Of course I am bringing up all kind of subjects here, but they are all related, and it is not so easy to do it right ir conveniently right.


No, this would be DSP (I said that I think). But DSP for another cause and replacing what a DAC otherwise is doing when talking about the filter only (and not about xovers and all).
But regading the last part of your question here, maybe you got confused by a. it not happening in real time, and b. you not needing to convert all of your files;

With real time I mean per window part which would be the smallest part needed when filters are applied (they need to read ahead to see what will happen in order to apply the filter, and that can be named a window).
With "not real time" I mean the stage of preconverting the file which XXHighEnd is just doing before handing the file to XXEngine3 (or to itself for Engine#1 and #2).

So your precious physical files remain untouched, but a copy of them will contain the filter. Keep in mind, this would be the "everything is possible" part, because it just needs an existing converter (SOX could be one) that allows for batch processing;
The "not everything is possible part" would work in interal memory, which is always available as an option because the file is present there too (the memory player is in luck this time ).

Can't it be so that at such a moment the Library Area contains albums from one of your music disks (like I:\) instead of from the Gallery ?
In that case the disk may need to spin up ...

?

20 Km closer from the Kiel direction ...

Haha, I agree (the Verdana I don't know ... must see it first).
Note though that the space the line will take grows with it (but possibly I can make the font smaller at the same time, and you won't notice a difference).

Without clicking Search ?

Hey Leif, thanks for your input. A few remarks which I think deserve some attention;


Yes, this is just equal to my first "review" of my Buffalo, and in the end is about my remark how very much more difficult it is to let sound an NOS good in such circumstances. With the Buffalo one can immediately feel with how much ease such passages are interpreted.


In itself this is true of course. The latter though is not true. Each and every explicit SQ change emerged from
a. some theory of mine *not* knowing the result in advance
or
b. undoing a degration and hoping that some counteracting means would help.


Haha, but maybe you forgot that XX just *is* in beta ... all the time so far.
Ranting (if any ... I don't think so) is for me about remarks steering me in the right direction again. If remarks/complaints were not there, it can only be me myself discovering anomalies, and who knows I'd never hear them.
Please keep in mind that I hardly have time for listening myself, and that relative to that already one of you may have 10 times more listening opportunities. IOW, don't underestimate what a huge amount of time it takes to find something like "No track given", while the whole stupid thing emerges at, say, 16 minutes of testing. It could take 100 times of testing these stupid 16 minutes, which I rather do without sound after the 25th time.
In the end you could say that I abuse you all, but the more there are, the earlier someone finds this anomaly (which as we know often is dedicated to a few only). In the end it is for the good cause of course. That it takes a few years more than I expected in the beginning, is only because at some stage I thought of the Unattened avoiding the GUI interference, with the example of right now : remote control. It is a kind of stupid of course to remotely control a player which is not there. But okay, with some additional months it will work (the best is yest to come).


And Leif, might you be sailing the North Sea some time ... you're welcome.
Peter

There will be filters in XX. The first will be for applying proper filtering for NOS DACs that work without - or can switch off filtering.
The mechanism of applying the filter (of any kind) will be general and applied onto the music file. Thus, not real time, compared to FLAC decoding.
Any filter available for such an application can be applied then. In a later stage more output channels will be supported, so XOvers will work as well.

The first one is the most important, because it will give NOS DAC users the opportunity to use a filter afterall, that filter not compromising anything to music (output) data ... assuming that I know what I am doing, can mesasure all I want/need and ... it will be dynamic. It will be dynamic/adaptive  to the various input rates, knowing that 44.1 needs a different filter than 96 etc.
When this works out as I intend, it will be a most good reason why XXHighEnd will sound better in NOS circumstances. But of course this is a kind of DSPing, although one of a special kind, and with the best purpose imagineable *and* it will just replace something a DAC normaly does - or should do.
Of course my NOS1 is the "perfect" example to test with, because it just has the options in hardware. If you'd only see that
a. filterless sounds best
b. what a complete mess measuring shows in that case
you'd know how much better it can be theoretically. Of course, unless this mess is what creates the sound kind of explicitly ... then the mess should just stay.

Please note the difference with something like equalizing. I am not in favour of that, and will "allow" it by the grace of the means to apply it (because : any filter can be applied, as explained before). So the only thing which I like about it is that it can be applied without loosing on SQ just because of applying it (mind you, like decoding FLAC is audible when done in real time).

Peter

No capacitors on any of the output possibilities, and no capacitors anywhere in the signal path.
Who'd want those ? hehe

In that link I pretty much explained what is going on, to an audio listener. Keep in mind though that there are no references. I can't say something like "more bass" or "more tight" or "wider stage". But, I hope we are learning something from it, like the 30,30 could be dedicated to "less dry".

The elements themselves (like Q2 only) might not even do something.
HOW CAN I KNOW ?

Bwaahahahahahaha

But of course LydMekk is right, it is an in fact undoable job to play with these when you don't know in detail what they do. Well, I of course know in detail from the technical point of view. For that matter I could reason out that the 30,30 would do what it seems to do. But that really is all.

I too stick to 4/5 = 0/0 and I will get used to the sound of 2/3 = 30/30. I think I am by know, to the sense that in ABX I would be able to guess the settings always. So, it starts to be time for adding one of the others.

Btw, besides dry/hall as we have now, I expect changes in the area of flanger. Or the other way around, the steadyness of a tone. Like a nylon string can be so much steady. But it can also float around a bit (on the same recording I mean).
And vibrato. But I think this goes along with flanger.