Could someone tell me if the Audiophilleo2 ($495) is worthwhile over the Audiophilleo1  ($895)?

I´ve never felt comfortable talking about $$$ versus SQ, and I feel a little ashamed doing it but I think that I must add my humble part:
 
My system just have three components: The Cd player, a pair of monoblocks and the speakers. $$$ is around $135.000. The parts are:

-Cd Player: EMM Labs CDSD SE transport and DCC2 SE dac. ($25.000)
-Amplifier: A pair of Spectron monoblocks with V-Cap capacitors and Bybee Purifiers ($10.000)
-Speakers: Von Schweikert VR-9SE ($90.000)
 
The system is as optimized as possible and the room is also acoustically prepared. I have to say that the sound is fantastic.
 
On the PC side, I use a Sony laptop connected to the EMM Labs dac through a 4 mt. USB cable ($20) to a Musiland adapter ($60) and a Wireworld glass optical digital cable ($160).
 
XXHighEnd is in Ramdisk and you can see my configuration below.
 
Well, what I can say is that even with such a poor PC configuration the sound is "better" than using the EMM Labs transport. I wont talk about latency or jitter because besides I don´t understand enough about it I don´t care either.
 
Of course "better" or "worse" are always subjective but I can a see some pseudo objective parameters using my PC as transport that I´d like to point out:

- The sound is fuller, and not because of more accurate bass and upper bass but also because there is more body in the music.
- There are more details. At the beginning could appear that the sound is someway thicker but after a couple of minutes you can distinguish perfectly more details in the music envelope.
- The sound stage is bigger in all the dimensions, high, wide and deep.
- The musicians in the sound stage are much better placed and defined in a more three-dimensional way.
- The highs are more extended with a natural smoothness.
- The deeper bass is tight although in this case I have to say that so far the PC transport it´s not  better than the EMM Labs transport.

In resume: The music is more emotional  and get me much more involved with the PC and XXHighEnd as transport than with the EMM Labs. That´s at the end what I´m looking for as a music lover.

A final word: If I can get this kind of music with such a humble PC parts I can easily think that could be better with a more consistent PC configuration. This is why I´m on the Peter´s waiting list for the Phasure NOS1 dac.

Happy Christmas to all.

My new findings:

SFS.ini-11/#4Engine/Special Mode/Buffer 2048/Scheme-3/Low-RealTime/SFS-178/Do not start Playback at all/Copy to XX-drive by standard/Q1=6 (1024)/ArcPredict/fx x 2.

I was using SFS.ini-21 but at the end it´s too rich no matter what you combine it with. On the other hand Scheme 1 makes the sound a little dry and although you can get nice sound after some listening time there is a lack of emotion.

Once all the other parameters are set I´ve made the fine tune with SFS. Surprisingly SFS gets more focus as it goes higher until one point where it starts to be fat and the voices are out of focus. So in my opinion SFS must be as high as possible until the point the sound is blurred, mostly the bass. Higher SFS also gives bigger soundstage. When I reach SFS-178, the balance point in my system, if I change SFS.ini 11 to SFS.ini 21 the voices and the scene gets too close of my listening seat.

I like the 09-z3 sound more than the one I got with 09-z2, bigger soundstage, fuller sound, harder to find a tight bass but possible, on the other hand perhaps a little short of the last word in definition but probably I could work it out a bit more...

Thanks Peter. No I don´t mind. I appreciate your help once more but admit that I was very close, or not?. 

I like a sound as much natural as possible with clear voices, tight and deep bass, piano harmonically rich and some kind of sweetness in the highs but not too much. This is my humble contribution to the best sound found so far for 09-z3:

SFSini-21. Engine 3. Adaptive. Buffer-1024. Scheme 1. Low-Real. SFS-52. Arc Predict. fx x 2. Q1:1 other Qs:0.

Hi Gerard, I do it this way and it works:

In Unattended mode.

Click "Copy to XX-drive by standard", click also "Do not Start Playback at all", then go to the window on the right side and click Explorer, look for the album you want to play and select all the songs or the ones you want to play and click open. Return to the left window and you´ll see the album in the Library. Use Alt-P (previously you have to have AutoHotkey working), then you see that there´s is no sound. Click Alt-X to see again the player. Turn off "Do not Start Playback at all" and click again Alt-P. Now you have your music sounding beautifully.

I read the forum same as you but quite often don´t understand it. We are mostly music lovers, some are computer lovers also but not the majority of us. So please some patience.

Thanks Peter. To remove it means just to close the message or to remove it in the origin (registry or wherever it is)?

Yes, when I say that I can´t recover XX with AutoHotkey I mean that Alt-X doesn´t work and that happens once in a while when the "Host Process..." message appears. I think that it happens when I try to do something with the PC while listening. If I don´t do nothing with the message XX works fine but if I try to shut it down the system crashes.

I´ve found this same problem also with 09-3z. If I leave the message on or if I click it off the problem is that even int the case that XX can continue working (not always) there is no way to recover it with AutoHotkey.
I don´t think that the solution should be to set both the player and thread priority settings to Nothing. Any other way to solve it?

I had the HDCD turned on but Normalized Volume wasn´t active. Now with HDCD off I can load a complete album but only if I use "Copy to XX-drive by standard". I haven´t tried that option before but If I want to load the same album directly in the RAMDisk I can´t load it. I guess this is because with "Copy to XX-drive by standard" the tracks are loaded one by one, is that correct?

Thanks Peter.

I´ve downsized the RAMDisk to 1Gb and now the system is working at normal speed but on the other hand I can play only two or three songs, that means that I need to be changing songs all the time. Using the RAMDisk the sound is clearer, more detailed and smoother so at the end it depends on the work you want to take. Of course to be able to use more memory would allow to play lists and that would be much more comfortable. Comfort of use and the best sound is a hard combination but I guess that´s how it should be.

Using the Special Mode seems to make a richer sound with some more harmonics, I don´t know if it´s due to the Q1 value which is 6 as the lowest possible one. When I use Adaptive I can get Q1=1 and the sound is quite similar, maybe a little thinner. I wanted to know why I can´t get Q1=1 with Special Mode because maybe with this configuration I could get even a better sound.

Just a few questions:

- What should be the virtual memory setting using RAMDisk?. I use RAMDisk with 1.200MB and trying now with 1.900Mb. My physical RAM is 4GB. I have the management of the virtual memory in Automatic and the system assigned 3.338Mb. The sound is good but the system is a little slow.

- Using RAMDisk and Special Mode with 1024 Buffer Size why I can´t get sound down to Q1=6?

- If I get a flac what´s best, to convert it to wav with dbpoweramp before I send it to XX or to leave XX do the job?.

Thanks Tony. While XX is playing I turned the Asio on and off and the sound doesn´t change at all. As Audiodidact (Roy) said when you use KS mode there is no use of Asio or Wasapi.

The last discovery I´ve made is to look for the Buffer Size as the Help in the XX says. I´ve found that my Buffer Size is 512 and that makes a big difference on sound when using Adaptive mode that requires exact buffer size. Try the correct Buffer size first, if you don´t have looked for it yet, and later look for the SFS because 90 and upper seems TOO rich for me, although of course it depends on your system. I´m using SFS at 43 and until I found the correct Buffer size the sound was on the bright size but not with the 512Mb setting, now the sound is much more natural.

I´ve played for a while with the Qs but I´ve found that the less distortion is with the typical Q1: 1 and the rest to 0.

Tony, as we both have the Musiland interface I´ve checked your settings and a quick impression is that there is no big difference between 1024 and 2048 but maybe a bit better with 1024.

With the other settings: Q1:1 and Q2-Q3:15-30 and I´ve found the sound a little sibilant. For me looks more natural with Q1:1 and other Qs at 0. Also the fx 2 makes the sound in my system a little brighter. I have to check it with more time though.

SFS setting was 43 with #3Engine, now I have to experiment because #4Engine seems a little dryer. Maybe just 45 would be ok, it´s quite impressive how a number or two more can make a difference.

Would be interesting if other people with Musiland inform on their findings.

Yes, I can change between Interfaz SPDIF (4- MUSILAND Monitor 01 USD) and KS: Monitor 01 USD [0001] >> #wave  and automatically change the #3Engine to #4Engine with a change in sound that I have to analyse with more time.

I´ll apply the rules you mentioned to see what happens and post my findings. So far I´m using Adaptive Mode/@2048/Split fs 43.

I´ll check also the Tony settings as he uses Musiland also.

Ok, the Device I´m using as appear in the litle window is:  KS: Monitor 01 USD [0001] >> #wave and yes, there is sound. If I understand well you Roy, do you mean that if I have sound with the KS mode I don´t have to be aware about Wasapi or Asio?

Thanks Roy and Tony.

Yes, maybe using the XX volume makes a difference but I agree that must be used with care.

My problem now is if I´m using Wasapi or Asio. The Musiland comes with Asio drivers but it seems that the KS mode is made for Wasapi. Can anyone help to let me know how to use Wasapi with my Musiland?

Thanks, Juan