It is good that you say this, because I noticed a (to me abonormally looking) long load time too, but wasn't sure. I can't think of reasons though, although things have changed slightly in that area. I will look into it.


This is normal for FLAC and MP3, but not intentional. Kind of difficult to solve (or better : kind of doesn't have priority and it is somewhat more difficult).


Litterally, no. After press play, yes.


Knowing what this theoretically can be (and this is not much at that stage of (not yet) playing), *and* combined with your TT story, I can only say something is wrong with the driver. So yes, I could solve something for you (which btw should not be needed -> something wrong in the base), but apparently I can't prevent everything. Example : if you'd kill the XXEngine3 process during playback, chances are high I think that your soundcard (!)/ DAC will be in the repeat loop again.

Please do yourself and me a favor. Reinstall the normal C-Media drivers and test again. And then ... please note that if nothing changes it still are the C-Media drivers being lousy (they just are).
Nor you, nor me should be bothered by an 18 euro solution endlessly, which can be solved by *another* 18 euro solution (buy whatever el cheapo soundcard just to test). BUT : If *I* could solve things for you, it is always better from my side. So it's not about that. What it is about (for me), is that I want to know what causes this. This is unrelated to solving it (ok, more or less).

Thanks,
Peter

If it's 90 degrees of, it's 50% wrong.

The kernel code producing the sound is some 6000 lines of program code now, which kind of makes you dizzy about the bits and pieces looking alike but are not. You could say the "smartness" in there to provide the good sound on one hand and save cpu cycles on the other, starts to cripple me a bit. Also, checking by listening has become a sheer impossibility because of all the combinations, and actually I am very glad that Mani "found" this means of checking.

Btw, I briefly looked at the aliasing, and things happen only at the other side (above 22050Hz) of the mirror. Only if you think you can hear this or you think it influences, you could call it wrong. Please note that no AA is applied on purpose, that leaving the audible data, say, bit perfect (and otherwise you'd get a roll off in the highs and more side effects).
The "hum" your picture showed in the other topic          , luckily didn't show with me (because *that* would really have been aliases at the wrong side of the mirror).
Careful : this was briefly looking.

But to be clear : Is it now indeed not happening anymore within XX itself ?

Oh, I think you can be sure it will be in there, some time. Permit me to have a couple of PEQs instead of normal EQs. Say, an infinite number per channel, until the CPU is choked.
Of course I just learned myself that cpu useage with 176400 is still virtually zero, what I maybe not expected. This tells me that indeed all the overhead is in the drivers, and I can kind of do what I want. It would be "sport" anyway, since my fun around computers has always been, say, tuning.

Btw, once the PEQs are there, it's no big deal to present them as high-pass and/or low-pass, hence crossovers. The remainder is assigning the lot to the appropriate channels.
I must say that I'm kind of surprised that some people already have 8 channel amps running, which only is encouraging to get this going.

When time permits.

Yeah, but how to rtf when there is no fm.
One of the major (copy/paste) works laying ahead of me.

In your XX folder, there's a file named LibraryData.txt;
What happens if you delete that (after XX has been shutdown) ?

Hahaha, not good. A clear case of program(er) error.
The Double-Upsampling part contains an error somewhere. The used bith depth can be the other way around just the same.
Smart ...

If your last pisture is, say, stable, then sure something is wrong there.
I'll dive into that this week. Something else for a change.

Wow. But I guess it's the one which says SR 176.4 KHz and is called Quad Upsampled.jpg.

Uhhm ... does Double/Upsampled looks so as well ?

Hehe But can use 96/24 over SPDIF then ? Or IOW do you, while USB just can't ?

Hi Terje,

I'm not sure whether that's the best ...
They don't tell what they do i.e. how they do it, much material is old, so how do they do *that*, and per album I can't see what I get, except it's High Definition.

So what is that ?
And what is Super HD ?

Peter

Mani, I assume that you don't mean that things changed for the worse since 0.9u-4 ? (for Doubling of course)
If you do mean that, then something else is going on, because such a change is not intentional.

Btw, don't forget to set the buffer of the soundcard accordingly (like in your case the Fireface);
For Double it needs 96 samples, and for Quad 128 (native can deal with 32 when your driver allows).

Also, when you (all) can listen to it through the same DAC (hence capable of 176400), give it some (tweak) time; Just as you needed experience with 44.1 or doubled to 88.2 for that matter, this needs that experience just the same, and the settings (like Q1) probably won't be the same.

Keep in mind that a DAC always performes worse on a higher sample rate than on the lower.
But then also try to imagine that the increased (though calculated) resolution works for movies, and therefore it should work for audio as well. Sadly so many parameters are in effect with audio (like the larger buffer needed, which destroys by itself).

And yes Mani, I still have to look into the aliasing.

Thank you Leo.

In fact, now I can go and listen to all the various tracks (links to them) all of you sent over time which didn't work. I have a whole collection of them by now !

Peter

Persnonally I don't like it at all. But then I can only listen to Quad via the Fireface as the DAC. And that's not really it.

It just has ! That's why it's bit perfect.
I thought you'd know it. Why are you using it then ? Just found it via Google ? if so, then indeed better revert to the original.