Yes Dave, at compromising my settings you still will be perceiving a technical difference;

Before your whole cue file album would be read into memory, whereas now (say 0.9w-3) only the track asked for is read into memory.

I recall from somewhere that you -being the chairman of the Cue File Brigade- were waiting for such a thing.

For anyone's interest : it took me a day or so to remap the virtual new memory management to something useable *IF* it had to change. This was the design only, and nothing about real programming yet.

I really have the sense that if it's done without real reason it can only destroy things after all the hard work ... and things just are working right now.

Concluded a bit : I may have fallen in my own pitfall to keep on testing the very small file part sizes, which didn't work out, but which also are not much different from the normal players around. Hmm ...

As said, one thing though : XXHighEnd allowing to start playback before everything has been prepared (like conversions and some more small (!) stuff) may just be another cause. I will test this the next couple of days.

I really don't think anything prevents you from just using 0.9w-3. The only thing might be a beneficial SQ improvement which I recognized myself at going from the last v version to the first w version. Just start with the Split file size at some maximum size (700 being "useful") and untick the Start Eninge3 during conversion to be safe.

Don't AB, but please tell me when it doesn't sound right. I'll listen to ya.
Peter

Nobody ?

Three nights further I don't want to change anything ...
This means, with the above given parameters all just sounds fine to me.

This also means that with the Split file at size at e.g. 12MB which I was using and/or with the checkbox Start Engine3 during conversion ticked, things go wrong.

At this moment I will change nothing, expect ticking the last mentioned checkbox and listen again a couple of nights ...

Peter

Hi Eric, it was described here : A few questions about Vista behaviour to you.

I Assume this helps you ?

Btw, somehow it seems that things go further than described in there, because that was about reverting to an older version.


Peter

Isn't that great !

I just checked mine (on SP1 since yesterday) and although I have more low green bars compared to before, there's still the "standard 1000 us" in there somewhere.
Luckily it doesn't bother me for the buffer size !

Anyway, great Chris !
Peter

Hi Chris,

The only relevant thing I can find on this is that another unzip program might help. For instance, you can let Vista unzip the download, but also WinZip. Or WinRAR, or 7Zip ... there are more.

I never heard of it, but please let me know whether you could solve it ...

In the mean time, below is a zip of ChangeWP alone, might you need the latest version (this one is from October 19 2008).
But maybe you can't unzip that either.

Regards,
Peter

Ok, just done it. Upgraded to SP1 and installed English as an additional language.
Works like a charm.

Again thanks for the tip Andrey.
Peter

I wanted to post this yesterday, but I wanted another night of listening.
I now did ...

For those who want to judge the difference between 0.9v-6a (or 0.9v-7 for that matter) and 0.9-w3, please try this :

- Set split file at size (MB) at 700 (minimum);
- UNtick Start Engine3 during conversion;

and


... and this is honestly of which I saw the merits just now :

- Set Q1 at 14. So, not specifically because of the above, but because it was my finding (too).

Now again : what is the difference ?
You don't need a tedious A-B, but just judge those settings.
It might help me with which direction to choose in the softare ...

Thanks,
Peter

http://www.ocztechnology.com/images/Configuring-and-Setting-Up-SSDs.pdf

Which tells about it all, and with the most important message that Vista SP0 is not suitable.
Time for me to move to SP1 ...

Uhmm, this is just for your information :

During the lifetime of XP, I experienced once, and only once (btw measured over lots of PC's in the company) that XP found problems in the hdd structure, and I had to run the good old CHKDSK/F.

Now, after the SSD being mounted a couple of days, tonight suddenly I couldn't retrieve my C:\Galleries\ because a corrupted file was in there (at the "Enumerate folders" process). So, I added the folder concerned in the message XXHighEnd provided, and could find the causing folder (indicating an artist folder in my case). Found (via normal Explorer) two albums (Gallleries of that) which were corrupted. At trying to tweak things via a Dos box, I was advised (by mr. Vista) to run CHKDSK/F.

I did, and numerous errors were fixed (hundreds if not more).

The errors just emerged at the PC never being down in between or any other anomaly occurring. In fact, it must have happened the PC just waiting for me to come home (not hybernating or sleeping).
Is this a coincidence ? I can't believe that (although it can).

So this is just a warning to myself : may the ssd incur for lost data in very normal circumstances ?

Hey Glynn,

It is really no problem. Seriously, it is not.
But for a next time ... what about copying the file to an usb stick, transport that to the internet connected PC, and email it from there.

Some people have just very bad luck, which in this case is also related to you and me both being treated as spam, this just being an additional handicap.
So, very bad luck, but extra lucky in love !

Anyway, sent you a PM again.

Now, you are a worldrecord holder in attempts by now, so it is really not necessary to let have it fail once again.
Of course this time *I* can have a mistake ...

Wish you all the luck on all sides !
Peter

WOW, based on my previous post I applied some tweaks, and after a half album of listening I think it works. Just 0.9w-3.

I'll try to make the tweaks formal, have a night of listening, and if it keeps on working I'll upload that here.

Ok.

But what about playing 96K files now ? Do you then have to change it again ?
Anyway that is what I meant about it being "fixed". Thus, it looks like you still have it fixed, although now on 44K1.

Don't you have something like the below picture ?
For me (hence the Fireface) it would be a matter of not activating DDS (in the DDS tab). Of course this is not exactly the wordclock, but I think it goes along with it.

If you currently don't have any problems it's okay, but a wordclock running on 44.1 doesn't seem good to me for 96K ...

Peter

(from the other board).

Waiiiiiiit a minute ... So you use Attended to judge all ?!?!?!
(yes it's in your sig too)
Besides that, I explicitly (!) do not "produce" the sound through Attended ! or IOW I never judge that. There's no need to either, because XXHighEnd (the UI) is completely out of control (meaning : I need to do in there what I need to do).
And ok, that you shouldn't listen Attendedly because the sound is always more bad, unless it is not by coincidence ... that's up to you.

But now things get interesting ... or confusing ...
The most obviously (to by curled brain) this is the exact reason why you heard the difference so clear while others did not.
Indirectly there was one other pertson who heard the difference so clear : me.
Now what can we derive from both situations (perhaps) :

It was my idea that the SSD emphasized whatever is going on in there;
A bit depending on what you heard vs. what others perceived with Unattended, it looks like XXHighEnd emphasizes just the same ?
And I think it could ... (but out of my control so far).

It might well be that the base nature of the sound indeed can be emphasized, which is - to my ideas - something very different from the sound in the base just being wrong or right. So, we have a motor and a booster (or a turbo). Hmm ...

Of course nobody judged the difference between your 0.9v-6a and 0.9w-3 Attendedly, but what about you judging the difference Unattendedly and try to bind some values on that, which will be relative to Attended ? One never knows what comes from that and for me and all it might lead to another chapter of SQ someday ...


Btw, in the mean time I am working on twisting XXEngine3 upside down, which is not so easy. But also I hope I am not doing this for nothing. Why ?

If you read the above once more, you can also read that in the context of XXHighEnd influencing XXEngine3, which happens at startup of Engine#3 but stays ...
Mind you, I have good indications this is so (or something similar is happening), which already may be so because of the memory is organized differently which may stick by itself when XXHighEnd closes (this is about the stupid "managed code" .NET problem of not being able to influence the memory management directly).

I know have the feeling that instead of adjusting XXEngine3, I must look/test in other directions first ...

Big fun. Your email got throuh, but mine to you was rejected.

Sent you a PM again.

Hmm ... Although the latter makes some sense to me, it is not true that XX has become "heavy" or havier lately. That is, not with Unattended Playback (otherwise you would be right).

Also note, as far as I can determine, there is no golden rule for the schemes for everybody at the same time. This will vary per configuration and works at the micro detail ... (not thinking about "music" as such, but about the distribution).
Most probably it will even vary per XXEngine3 version, but I cannot point it out (nothing about not wanting, I just can't ).

Peter