Probably it's the same, yes (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=184.msg1074#msg1074).

I never had this, and I wouldn't know how to copy that behaviour. So Chris, what is this "slight wobble" you talk about ? ... could be important ...

Hi Frank,


No, Engine#1 and #2 do not support cue files, although #1 could.
What I only now realize is that nothing prevents you from loading the large WAV from a "cue file" into the Playlist Area, while #1 and #2 won't play it (actually I wonder what happens then).

Whether it will be easy to implement the cue files for #1 I don't know.

Both #1 and #2 do not support the Q1 and they never will (is impossible).


This would always be the latest version (like 0.9k as per now). BUT :
Actually it is more difficult to "see" this;
Where Engine#3 is completely independent of the XXHighEnd.exe, Engine#1 and #2 are not. The point is, the majority of the "SQ" comes from the GUI (which would be XXHighEnd.exe). Maybe not litterally the GUI, but it is that "interface" that determines when and how tracks are loaded into where , and how much things interfere which eachother. For example, the support for cue files actually is done in that interface (and "interface" is literal here, because all is a matter of communicating with the, say, sound output), and in order to keep things manageable, parts of it are general. So what do I say ? well, that the support for cue files which is for Engine#3 only, may influence sound of #1 and #2. Actually this seems to have happend (J vs. K version SQ) to a kind of high degree (and unintentional). So the real answer is :

It has been months (5 maybe) that I worked on the SQ of #1 and #2, but in fact every change to the program influences.
People, particularly engineers, may be ROFL, but 0.9j vs. 0.9k just proves it. As long as you trust me that I actually did not change anything that could have mattered to SQ. It just does.
 

Yes, as per Activation ... How ?

Peter

Oh, I'm as much bugged as you that I can't try those files. But I guess I did not work on that so far because my stereo DAC can't handle that ...
But I have a DAC which can, so at least I am able to create/test it. Now I must find some time ...

Of course it can be fixed, but it can't have priority over other matters while in the mean time I myself don't have it (hence time consuing). But this is related to having the example, which I now received from Johan.
I imagine this to be solved in the next version (and currently I can't upgrade, because everything is upside down in the program at this moment).

I just realize that it's not on the buglist. Good that you asked.

Thank you Gerner.
On the <list> things, you'd have to remove the ones on top and at the bottom. I know you did not put them there, but it happens when you do something else wrong (unmatched li tags).
Btw, if you have one <list> pair (you have three) you'll achieve the same by having an empty line before each </li>.

On to the music ...


Yes, very recognizeable. One of the most occurring things is the harmonics. If we could measure that by (church) bells, I've never heard them so beautiful. And I mean BEAUTIFUL.


Well, since we go on and on with the improvements, I guess Yes. But, currently I would not know how without destroying other things. If you'd ask me, now the jitter is nicely spread over the frequency spectrum, which doesn't say much about the jitter level itself. Thus, if I could maintain the spreading, but decrease the level ... you never know what happens. And mind you, "the" DAC has physical limitations which I can't influence by software throughout. So somewhere it stops with "the" DAC ("the" = anyone's, and they are all different).

But I still have a couple of ideas. Other things first now.

Peter

Wanted to come back on this :

This is sooo true. This is about another type of "jitter". It is about the unstableness of the DAC clock resulting in frequency per time variations, which now is influenced for the better ...
The other things you said I agree fully with as well;
Better singing of cymbals, mid/low is better, bells are beauties, very small bells now are there and sing a long time, strange stuff a drummer can hit is not so strange anymore.

pedal,

I sure believe you (even if you would have been alone on this). But I really wonder what you guys do since I did not change a thing. Okay, this is not 100% true, but what I did should not be in an aera that influences sound quality. Also, I thought I had found strange things to influence SQ, but this would beat all.
The point is, this would be beyond my understandings, hence control. Well, today anyway.

For you too, keep in mind that a new version would get rid of earlier settings, and e.g. priority defaults back to "nothing".


Yeah, so recognizeable (I play louder, by the way ) so again, I sure believe you (all).
Btw, being able to play less loud for me *always* is an indication of more poor quality. BUT, things must be able to go as loud as you want *including all the detail* (and without standing waves). If you could think 0.9k/XP/Engine#1 is better afterall, my problem would be gone, hehe.

Anyway, I just got an idea of something which could influence SQ. I will apply that in the new 0.9l version (not ready yet).

Peter

Johan,

If this did not help (at all ?) I wouldn't know what to do. It should help ...
You could try to start XX from exactly the same folder as the 0.9j version (first save the 0.9j contents to somewhere), by exactly the same means (same desktop icon or whatever you used), and see whether that helps ? I know, this sounds rediculeous, but something must cause it.

Btw, what you describe is not necessarily worse (in 0.9k), and even more flat sound could indicate "better". But that's another story.
Also note that where 0.9k to my ears (so far) is definitely better, 0.9j was doubtful; 0.9d had things 0.9j did not have. 0.9k has things from both, and IMO more (yeah, this "more" is dangerous).

Peter

Hi Guilio,

Thank you, and welcome here !

There's two solutions then, of which one is theory only : keep on using XP and buy an RME soundcard with MME drivers (guaranteed would be a Fireface, about the others I can only assume they work). But this (unofficial MME driver) is unstable ... (won't allow alt-tab and go back to the player).
So there's one official solution left : Vista. And as said more often : what you gain with it is much better sound quality. Really.

Peter

Oops, sorry, wanted to tell that. Furthermore it would be about the album title; I did not try it, but I don't thing the tracknames would matter (not with cue files).

About your ideas : yes, obviously. But I'd rather wait with that until those kind of things can be added to the album (and track) data anyway.
Which it will in near future ...

No, that is, nothing has been reported about differences.
It is true though that Vista Business does not contain some essentials, but this has been solved by adding lacking DLLs in the "install".

That would be true ...
In that case for each track the whole album has to be reloaded ...

It can be smarter, but at the time I had been more busy with it than I thought in advance. So to be honest I thought "let it be for now; other things must have more prio currently".
Remember, if you load the album (the large WAV) into the Playlist Area by means of the Library button, it will be treated as if it were no cue file ...

Johan, it is totally impossible to compare XP/Engine#1 with Vista/Engine#3. I mean, they are not related at all. But :

By pure coincidence you could perceive the impression you described.
Question : If you replace the XXEngine3.exe in your current folder with the one below in the zip, is everythig back to normal ?

Keep good track of which XXEngine3.exe is which version, because you can't see it. The one to test with (below) is smaller though.

How many steps do you think there are in 32 bits ? hahahaha too many to write down.

But no, it can't happen. Not without loosing on SQ. The point is, you don't have a 32bit DAC ...
With 24 bits it becomes "kind of" possible, but you'd have to play at over 12:00 of your normal volume knob at least.

Anyway, it sure is (more longer term) planned to do the things you ask, and all of them are not difficult. Note though that it will put constraints to your environment, and that all is one big knot which is *very* difficult to workout decently / sufficiently. One example to get you going :

My Fireface has ADAT channels, meaning that I can send 8 channels (2 x 4) to that soundcard, the soundcard distributing them to all the preamps or main amps (you'd want the latter) (thinking in terms of per loudspeaker channels (with crossovers)). Nice eh ?

Yeah well, I can do that only if I use the DACs from the soundcard. And I really won't ...
So I'd need 4 stereo DACs. And 4 x (x 2) digital-out from the ADAT supporting device. I won't buy those DACs and the Fireface does not support all the digital-outs.

But the time will come that this is all going to work ...

Btw, are you SURE you did not forget to apply earlier setting which got lost after the 0.9k install ?
For Engine#1 this can be the Sound Device only ... (which may workout as to using different drivers)