Peter,
no matter for me about my name...you probably can't spell my real name so Cris is ok  (I just put some additional letters to be sure that this name is not occupied )
about converted flac->.wav my hardware system (PC) is (don't laugh please) only with 512ddr and one core Celeron at 3ghz...so with OS Vista even 3 min .FLAC file takes lot of time and CPU, RAM to calculate so I blame my "screaming" .Flac to it (because it's all about a speed right? ..and yea I take my words bake for .APE then). One more think about my "screaming" .flac with 512 ram I can't afford a RamDisc and believe or not but there is "pretty" noise coming from my 7 years old hard drive, CPU+fan and power supplies fan(and it's not only from the case...it's in the headphones-Brownian motion http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81815/Brownian-motion).
P.S. Finally I manage my problems with the new version... after 2 fresh installs of Vista...(for Peter cuz I ask him for help) It was from my OS Speedy Vista i found in trackers. It was reaallyy fat run even on PC with 256 but it was 680mb and very cut and lite...too cut and lite I think
P.S. My first impression ...my honest RESPECT Peter damn good!
Excuse me once again for my very poor English I really try hard...
Best Regards, Chriss, Criss, Cris...Cris is ok I think

Off: Adrian I don't mean to be offensive but MP3 can't be outstandingly good especially  in a HighEnd player as XX it seems pointless. I don't wanna start a new war but for me even FLAC sounds screamy and 'ugly'. ONLY .WAV
Off.2 Btw Peter .APE sounds little bit better than .FLAC it will be a good plug-in
Best Regards, Criss.

Yes but you can try other values like 3, 4 and 5(I recommended to try with 1 and then with 3-6 and Engine#3!)

quote:
The usbport.sys trick only works for mice like they say on your second link, if I understand it correctly...


Well it's an USBPORT so I think it's working for Ports no matter which device we use. I did not receive any positive impression yet from this usbport.sys. So still testing.
Regards, Criss.

Marcin,
I'm totally confused now you have right about IdleEnable (0-off, 1-on) that's the logic but Vista is not 1ms as it sad in the http://cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.07Optimisations it's "USB polling frequency from the Windows Vista default of 125hz" quote http://forum.overclock3d.net/index.php?/topic/8088-vista-usbportsys-500hz-mouse-polling-rate/ you may want to try their  usbport.sys files for 500hz and 1000hz as I did. But honestly IdleEnable value 6 give dramatically  more sonic sound than any usbport.sys files. I admit that it's strange  and odd...maybe I'm going nuts...but I really love it
Best regards, Criss.

Hey Marcin,
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/mouse-dpi-and-usb-polling-rate.html here we have:
Polling rate     Response time
125 Hz           8 ms
250 Hz           4 ms
500 Hz           2 ms
1000 Hz           1 ms
The default USB polling rate is 125 Hz so=8ms
1ms=1000hz so dworf IdleEnable -1 (on=1ms=1000hz) (that is strongly my thoughts) I decide to try with other values (wandering where might be the other Hz and ms) and I found the difference. That's why i what to share it even i think to ask Microsoft for it.
Best regards, Chriss.

Holla Marcin,
well it's little bit funny and odd because http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.07Optimisations (site that I found in tweak  Vista topic) gave me an idea to try reduce usb polling. In Google there is only programs for it and info about values used in optical mice and special software for them. So I decide  to give a try only with the info from the up link with different values:) Just give a try and tell if it's an AFAIK...if it is ..then I'll stay FAIK with IdleEnable=3
..seriously try it!

P.S. tomorrow I'll try to find some mouse software and try with it.
P.S.2 I know it sounds... crazy but I can hear a difference betwen IdleEnable-2 and IdleEnable-3 and 5.
Best regards, Chriss.

Hey Peter,
First my Dac is 16/48khz (it's burr-brown 2706 ) and I try A LOT of combinations with USB Polling and I found that 375mHz(this is value 3 as I sad) is much much better with Engine #3 not KS and I say it again MUCH better Adaptive mode ofc, can touch almost the bottom with 48 Buffer Size(in both Modes) but i prefer much bigger like 3072!(even 4096) and Q1 set to 1 is OK  but (different point of view again ) i prefer bigger values for Q1 like 12. I can hear that such a Q1 give me moore room and depth. In conclusion my USB DAC sound best (and a lot better!) with IdleEnable=3ms Engine#3 Adaptive Mode-over 2048, Q1 9-16, SFS-(here is very interesting ) for now  I can say only over 50! and for over an year I try a lot of 'combos' but this Polling thing (and XXHighEnd Team and mostly you Peter) makes me smile and cry for 2 days for since I try it!
P.S. Try to excuse me for my poor English spelling please
Best regards, Chriss.

I want to say AHOY to everybody (cuz this is my first post).I've been using XX for an year already but finally felt like writing since I have to share something,that might come in handy.To get the clue -I think it's of a rather different significance than SFS (even Engine and Mode) and crucial for SQ.
Reduce USB Polling!!! Well I'm using Burr-Brown 2702(6,7) USB Dac(with headphones I'm still waiting for my amplifier) but after I tried http://cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.07Optimisations chapter 7.3  step 7->Reduce USB Polling (with "idleEnable" value=3 =375mHz=3ms it came the  best sound so far) I have totally different sounding system and XX!!!
I suggest to everyone who have USB DAC or HDD to give it a try at 3ms or different value(maybe 2 or 4 can be the sweet spot or other)! 1ms sounds to edgy and aggressive like "hey look at me I've got it all" 3ms sounds more balanced and calm with more micro detail and stage.
P.S. I don't know where to post it so sorry if it's not the right topic 
Some additional info about IdleEnable values:
"by default sets the windows usb polling rate at 125mhz thats an 8ms response time to me and you. what does this mean, well, this equates to lag!
125mhz @8ms response time (default for the Windows)
250mhz @4ms response time
500mhz @2ms response time
And the highest so far:
1000mhz @**1ms** response time!!!"

Best regards, Chriss!