Apart from that your "SQ problem" is out of the way by now, this just wouldn't change anything. Of course you are not long enough around here to just "know" that everything in software matters, but indeed it would be so that your suggested solution would influence sound for the worse. Not that I "stated" from the beginning this would be so ... the contrary; all is too way out to believe. But if you'd look back in the forum posts ... each time I said that I didn't change anything explicitly for SQ, people fell all over me with the message this was so anyway. Now *knowing* it, it is just true. Whether you -at this moment- can hear it is another thing, but you can sure learn to hear it.

Computers ... 

Since this topic woke up by someone referencing it, the above is not much true anymore for negatives :

• During UnAttended playback the Coverart can show as Wallpaper, including the track playing (see checkbox in the Settings Area for this).
• Bringing up XXHighEnd and press Next just works. No Stop needed in between.
• Similarly new tracks can be loaded, and selecting one (or more) and press Play is sufficient to reset playing to those tracks.

Hahaha, you are not even close.

Thank you Brent. I will be built in in 0.9u.



I responded to this here : The SQ of XXHighEnd Unregistered

Brent, indeed another topic. So I created one for you ... 

I never thought about it until your question ... but running XX UnAttened would take distance from that unintentional phenomenon (and I think UnAttended was brought later than when we found out about the difference in SQ). UnAttended is just possible in demo mode.


Personally I don't think it can work like that. XXHighEnd was created for the sound quality, and any additional features would be kind of stupid to pay for, because *those* are just rather normal features you see all over the place. Also, because those features (mainly the Library Functions) can be near equal, worse or just super bad related to the other players, I won't get myself into "complaints" about that, while actually it was not, is not, and never will be about that. It's just a necessary thing. So a twist as proposed will suggest wrongly IMO.

People might think that "features" like MP3 support is something that doesn't belong in a high end player, and that *that* actually is an example of what people might want to pay for as an additional feature. Well, once you fell in love with XXHighEnd for SQ in the first place I don't think MP3 playback will get any better for SQ in any other player. The SQ of MP3 with a bitrate of 256 and higher is already better than what I perceive from any "normal" USD 100,000+ system playing full quality CDs from a CDP.
Actually with 0.9u this is so outrageously much better again, that maybe a time will come that many with their so called cr*ppy MP3 pile of music will end up with XX. Those who don't care or like the 3D pictures stay with iTunes.

Of course I don't need to respond so extensively to your question and well meant suggestion Brent, but with the above I want to make clear that my heart is in the sound quality and that stupids like me even work big time on the best SQ of MP3. Do I do this to satisfy some teenagers (who are well over 30 now ) ? no. I do this because MP3 isn't inheritently worse. It's the stuff around it (like playback) that s*cks. Try it.
And on another note : CD singles just died, and are brought to you for free now in MP3 format.

Concluded, it is sound quality what I hunt for (including "2 times better each other few months" ) and it is that what one pays for.
Peter

A couple of hours ago I at last got all working in a way that I can prove is right. So in fact I'm done with what I planned a week ago, and in the mean time more (that would be the 24 bit part).

What remains is ... well ... something very useful for 18bit+ DAC users.
Could take a few hours ... could take 2 days.



PS: This is rather off topic in this thread.

True. But that will work "by itself" now.
If anyone has a link to such a file I'll be glad to test it ... If that is a link to a private page, please PM instead of making it public (because of copyright and stuff).

Sadly this track has something wrong in its header data. I did not take the time to look for exactly what it is, but might you ever receive the 96/24 XX version ... this track won't play ...

Others do allright.

Yep. On the same DAC (TwinDAC+).

Hi Brent,


Nice ... Well, I sure hope that many click your link from here. And don't get annoyed when you find me as competition on your path, hehe.

By now you may not be interested anymore, but the glitches one may perceive from an OS at audio playback most probably (and IMHO) do not come from the OS itself. Indirectly, maybe yes, but always avoideable. Also there seem to be constraints on the USB receiver chip, or whatever it is that makes the 1541 more prone to glitches than anything else. That is, so it seems looking at the "problems" some had, as expressed on this forum.
I use an USB DAC as well ... not often, but when I use it ... I never heard glitches etc. coming from it. Not with XX anyway.

That a server OS is more robust is without doubt, and on that matter we better give it a try. From this robustness I suspect better SQ anyway (and that a "tweaked" laptop OS incurs for the opposite is very clear to me);

With below little program you can get the OS as how it is reported in the way I need it. Just copy paste what it gives in the text box into here, and then I'll adjust XX to that.

Peter

G'day there Russ,

Sure someone noticed, because I was told before. Where ? I thought on this forum, but I can't find it anymore. Maybe it was PM.
Anyway, I thought to support 96/24 decently first before giving them a call. 

Peter

Guys,

I know you are waiting. But so far what I can do with 16 bits, I can't do with 24 (whatever it is I mean by that ). Theoretically it can be done, but in practice things are, say, just a tad too complicated for me.
Since this morning (after many days of struggle) I have sound from it which doesn't sound wrong. However, so far I can't prove that what happens in the least siginificant bits of the 24 bits (the part which has the higest resolution) is correct.

So please be patient.
Peter

As long as you don't think 0.9t-7 or earlier can do the job ! It most certainly can't ...

Hi,

I'm 95% confident that this is solved already. But if not, I will sure try it for you.
Peter

Yes, but as said, I can interpret the same as a DAC does, and then "mangle" the data so that a normal DAC would understand. That is, if it can cope with the resolution (*and* if the means of doing it is not propriatery, but I don't think it is).

On your other questions ... let's wait until 0.9u. I think a lot of things become more clear then.
And more confusing.