Hi pedal,

When I finished writing the below, I wanted to scratch it again because it doesn't seem to make a difference to matters. But my curiosity stays on what you actually meant by the 10KHz phrase and all. You could mean that such a high frequency tone is hardly audible anyway, so how to hear a difference between a square and a sine. But since you also emphasized on the capacitor thing *and* your DDDac doesn't have them, all together I wonder what the message is. So I did not scratch it :



Are you sure you tried that with your DDDac ? (I mean : with a nos DAC)
They sound very different !?!


Again strange, because your DDDac has no caps in the output stage I think. Or ... or maybe you explicitly talk about the TRUE square waves ... they indeed cannot exist in electronics.
Anyway, my squares show square and fair on my scope (with some ringing of course). No matter where I measure (even in mid air ehh room, though very hard to capture there because of reflections). They do from 20-20000Hz (and more I'm sure, but I did not test that) ...
They do NOT with an oversampling DAC (at 10000 they're already nice sines, but depending on the amount of oversampling of course).

Peter

No, I did not try it on a quad myself. But I do know that what is under my control under a Dual, is not under a Quad.
Difficult to explain. But for example, Gerner who has a Quad says he does not hear a difference between settings. In the Quad case this could just be true, because things are not (enough) under my control ...

Oh well .. never mind (?) ...

Maybe it is more easy to understand it like this :

In that particular version of XXHighEnd the frequency output (as for the net result in the room) shifted to the low side. In 0.9s-1 it is shifted in the other direction - to the highs.
This is, btw, a typical signature of jitter ... or the bass is good, or the treble is good. Not both. In tis case (0.9s-1) however something else happened;
where the highs contain a fair (too musch) amount of jitter playing with Appointment Scheme-1, Scheme-3 just makes that good, pertaining the other goodies (I did not try "No Appointment" but my feeling says it's rather the same as Scheme-3).

Well, IMO of course.

Gerner, it is all in the post I referred to. The XX version concerned can still be downloaded ... but how can you check since you don't have subwoofers. And of course you must have the appropriate album (Hatfield's End, Stonehenge 4 in this case).
This has few to do with room response, it has NOTHING to do with tweaking frequency output, it is just a stupid software player doing it (wrong in this case  ).

 

Thank you very much pedal !
And ... you just confirmed something I did not want to do myself, but will now : increase the bass volume (at the filter side).

Please allow me - as usual  - to backup your findings with IMO a related story of mine. For my own mind setting it's always good to write about things anyway :

First, please read this post : Re: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j;
This, btw, also shows why it is important to archive things the way I do it, and why your feedback is so important.

Well, whether all is really true as how I described it in that post or not may be not the most important, but the sole fact that with 0.9s-1 the bass output got less -while at the same time being sure that it is for the better because of bass output being more clean (indeed)- this again will be about less standing waves in the room. Must be ...
Might you not have taken the time to read that long post I just referred to ... it is about a 26dB increase of the sub-low frequencies, only because of a software player working out ... well ... not the best ? And this 26dB is indeed in a frequeny range 99% of audio freaks won't even notice because they aren't ready for the subwoofer era.

Now, as a kind of side story, the way I tweaked my xovers already shows a more or less ridiculeous dip in the middle, or better, boosted bass and boosted highs. I won't again refer to the topic where I brainstormed about my reasons for uplevelling the highs (it must be worked out better / more decent), but for in here it might be important that the output as measured from the speakers already was uplifted crazily and now will go in the same direction for the bass.

Sidenote : Be aware that in my case the highs are to be interpreted as coming from horn speakers, measured at the mouth, meaning : the output is rather directional, the room far far less contributing to it by means of reflections. For the bass output this is unrelated (the room will do her work here anyway).

Since I am too deep into listening carefully how things should sound, and which nowadays is ONLY about nature, and near nothing about removing distortions (or IOW not about "how will my system sound the least disturbing" -> history) I myself am dead sure that there is nothing wrong with my uplevelled highs, as well as that nothing will be wrong with uplevelled lows. Now, assuming I am right, we get this :

When a loudspeaker (or in fact system) is measured, this doesn't go through XXHighEnd, right ? whatever it goes through, it is not what we listen through playing our albums. Now you tell me : if a stupid piece of software player can incur for 26dB lifted sub low frequencies (as it works out in the room !!), what is there to say from whatever measuring software ? And oh, I do not say that this software (or device) would be wrong, but I sure say it works out differently.
But ... when we all, by means of absolute judging/listening/hearing come to the conclusion that XXHighEnd her output is good, then that leaves us with the withgoing conclusion that the output of the measuring will be wrong(ish ?). And obviously there is no reason why our measuring software is not subjective to the same matters our software player is, knowing that the differences emerge at the DAC side ...

Of course, nothing tells us that it is necessary to adjust the frequency output of our speakers, but as far as I can tell many things are going on beyond our knowledge, and when a frequency curve as I imply does so much good to natural sound (which is explicitly not subjective to what I like or whatever), then something must be going on.

Peter

This is what I had in mind for yesterday, but I did not get to it. Right now the fun is a bit over ...

What about your self-tuning Vista Audio System ?

After a few days of using 0.9s (which actually is a few days before you all received it) I got my first message about Vista shutting down the spooler service (this is for printing). So I thought, so what ...
Then a few days later the indexing service stopped working ... which is good because I already stopped it, but it came back after a reboot (a known Vista problem).
Then again a few days later a next service shut down, some svhost service dealing with the graphics on the screen (look below how "white" the taskbar became from it).

So ... as long as audio keeps on playing, this must be for the better.

As said, yesterday I wanted to report about this (but did not).

Then, this morning the first report from someone of you came in, about that spooler service. And a second ...
And then someone mentioned about the indexing service ...

Well, did we create a self learning audio system, or what ?
uhhmm ...

I guess it is a matter of waiting until Vista shuts down herself. We can only hope for the audio keep on playing. Must be the best !


Ok, actually I don't know what's happening, but my first thought is that according to the priority settings and all, Vista decides that it isn't able to run services accordingly anyway, so she shuts them down automatically (I've seen "time out" reports in the Windows error log). From theory that is just good.
Of course you can wait for nothing running anymore, if this continues this way.

Yesterday I thought I was alone on this, but wanted to warn you anyway. But strangely enough today (and not last sunday/monday when 0.9s was uploaded)  people start to report similarly, and now I'm thinking whether it really can be so Vista "learns" from her environment.
Currently, my spooler service is already shut down right after a reboot. Well, again, good. But how on earth is this possible ? It took 4 or 5 days before a first occasion of this happened to me. Unless people did not report it, it took "your system" 4 or 5 days to come up with it.

Now what ?

Of course it is not the file ? ... 

Good point Dave. I did not know it. Easy enough to solve.

All true and clear guys. Will be solved !

Thank you once again Johan !

You are just ahead of me. Wanted to post about this last night, but got busy with other things.
I'll retry tonight.

(it's not problem anyway).

No no no ... a next version will solve that !

No Johan, this is not true.
Delete is for physically deleting a saved Playlist (the .PLXX files) from disk.
Clear does just what you want, and it clears the Playlist Area (from tracks to play).

One exception to the latter would be that the currently playing track will stay (at Attended Playback), and you can do two things to get rid of this one :
a. Drag it to the Delete button
b. Click Stop and click Clear.

If this is working differently in your XX, please let me know ...



Note :
I think I can imagine some confusion, thinking of the auto-reload of the last Playlist in the Playlist Area. I'm not even sure yet that stays as a featute, but people asked for it. Anyway, it still counts that Clear will clear the Playlist Area, and btw when you then click Off, the empty contents is saved. IOW, if you are bothered by the ever reoccurring old Playlist, you could get used to click (Stop-) Clear before you click Off.

If I don't understand what you mean, please let know that too ... 

Hi Arthur,

No, I can't think of any reason why SQ would be compromised as long as you get Vista properly running in there (which wouldn't be a problem either).

The only thing I heard from the beginning of XX's life was that sound stopped after each track, which a. never was worked out but b. can very easily have been solved by now because of many things in this area being solved throuhgout time.
If this problem is still there we'll work it out.

Peter

Hmm ... I don't understand the first part, but the second part (delete twice) will be solved.
And ... since the first delete already isn't necessary for anything (IMO), any virtual second is too virtual to cause problems.

Hi Johan,

If all is right nothing will change whether you select the default (Primary Sound Device) or the first real one listed. Both are the same ...

Or ?