This version supports 640x480 displays to the sense that the album picture can disappear (click on it) on behalf of the tracknames (showing longer). Click on the Playlist Tab brings it back.
As an alternative the picture can be shown in the bottom left corner at the place normally the XX Logo shows (drag the bottom border of the form and click on the Logo).

The latter can be used with larger displays just the same to show the album picture even larger (keep on dragging the bottom border of the form), and show longer tracknames in the mean time.

Also see the ToolTips from both mentioned picture areas.

Yello ... well, I kind of promised that (elsewhere)

And Russ, the buzz you mention was reported by someone else too : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=24.0
Maybe it's not exactly the same there (and another PC for sure ) and the only thing I can say is that I had this once myself. Only once.
Don't start looking for it, but might you find the common denominator ...

Regards,
Peter

Small update : Jack has been graciously helping all evening (offline).
So far, no solution yet ...

Thank you Jack.

Jack,

Besides that I'm late on things, I just found that what I was looking for (some x64 DLLs) cannot be found where I expected them.
I will proceed on this in an hour or two, but I really don't know your times (you might be even at work right now).

?

With this version, album names and track names containing Diacritical Marks (like é, ù, ë etc. etc.) kan be played with Engine#3 (with #1 and #2 this has always been possible).

It took me quite some time to solve this beast, because it seems that no official means exist to solve the general foreign track names opposed to a certain country you live in (if the track names could always relate to your country hence "code page" you use, it would be another story).

I have no idea whether even things like Korean etc. work as well, but if all is as intended it does.
If something works out wrongly, please report !

Hi Frank,

Let me first say that, of course, everybody is "allowed" to tweak the PC as liked, and that in my previous post I only tried to emphasize that it should not be necessary. Otoh we actually don't know what that can additonally bring. All in other words, your thread is about what to do to this respect and it is perfectly legit ... as long as people don't interpret it as a must to have very good playback with XX.

As a sidenote there's something I forgot to tell in my previous post : do note that you actually are comparing apples and oranges when you compare XXHighEnd on XP with a random (OS) version of Foobar, because for 99% chance with XXHighEnd under XP you were not playing bit perfect, while with Foobar you surely will have (KS or ASIO). This already tells us the first tweaks which *are* important for XXHighEnd : let run all bit perfect under XP or use Vista with Engine#3. The first (XP) ought to be unreacheable because it needs special drivers hence a special soundcard, or (and) with USB you won't be able to play tracks larger than 64MB. The path to outlay how to achieve this starts with "use Engine#1" (with #2 it is impossible and #3 is for Vista only) and ends with "have a Fireface and use the MME drivers". I mean, there's probably much more which will do it, but it is really up to yourselves to test it and prove the bit perfectness.

For USB I just don't know whether it is bit perfect, just because I never had the means to check that, which comes down to a DAC with a digital output so it can be looped back for checking. According to the structure of all, I think USB is not bit perfect, but half of the world just does not agree with that. In the end I just don't know.

Above "tweaks" are far far more important than anything else. Mind you, with XXHighEnd.
Btw, to avoid the rather confusing of the above, one should just use Vista and Engine#3 ... and keep in mind that Engine#1 and #2 in there just should NOT be used because of Vista explicitly resampling those, that being even worse than "not bit perfect" in general. Also see here for a small proof of it, which you can perform yourselves : Test track with distortion which isn't there... .

Back to your post Frank ...


No, no, no and no again. However ... why not make the decision on this yourselve(s);
First of all, keep in mind that the context of (answers and) questions is XXHighEnd; I know what I do and do not (avoid) in there and from that base I say No. Now,
When you *know* that any bit perfect means, might it be JRiver, Foobar, XMPlay name them, are bit perfect because you just can measure it (and I mean loop back, not "DTS tests"), how would *you* explain the sound can differ by means of heat, vibrations, radiation and all. The only thing you possibly can say is that those things incur for jitter ... Well, be my guest, but I just don't know.
(the latter is exactly the point ... I don't know what the other players do to inject jitter, which they obviously do).
BUT :
There is one thing I found prone to producing jitter, and that's (generally spoken) everything which puts out the data to the soundcard. Remember, the soundcard should be outside the PC as a base rule, but it has to be fed. I think I can fairly say (meaning : without real proof) that any on (mo)board chip producing that data stream, injects jitter. Whether this is caused by radiation or the signal path to the chip accordingly I don't know, but to my findings a PCI card doing that job gives far better results. Sadly enough these cards amongst eachother differ also, but that I personally blame to power ratings (I mean kind of : when there's enough power to control the stream decently, the variance in between the bytes is less, hence less jitter). Here too : no real proof of that (not by me anyway).
This would or could imply that a sufficient (overrated) PSU is a good thing to have.


I really can't think of how. However, this is kind of dangerous because I did not even try it out (and you did, and heard differences). BUT :
What you tried for XP, I tried the other way around for Vista/Engine#3 and I tried to blow up the PC as much as I could and I couldn't hear a difference, let alone notice glitches etc. For that matter, please note that XXHighEnd was actually born (created) for Vista/Engine#3, and that the possibilities (hence Engine#1 and #2) for XP were created as a surrogate solution to my so many months working on #3 never seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. This more or less implies that what happens in XP (better #1 and #2) is a kind of rough implementation of what #3 (back then) intended. It works okay I think, but in theory much much less than Vista/#3.

From this, obviously is implied that you really should checkout Vista/#3 before you take the troubles in the XP environment of which I say that it really cannot be the best.
Besides that, Vista/#3 sounds TOTALLY DIFFERENT from XP#1/#2 (even with XP in "bit perfect mode" which I just can have).

Because of the latter, the big fun should be that when you find differences between XXHighEnd and another player, your next level of listening has been born then, because now you are going to be surpised with the differences in between XXHighEnd settings itself. From that you learn better what to listen to, and in the end you really won't be able to even begin understanding how it came that you liked PC playback before (hence with the other players). So keep in mind : this is the process of knowing what to listen for / look for, like the standing waves thing. On that matter I often have another good example for everyone to checkout very easily : put your hand or body on a rock solid element like a heavy table, and *know* within really one second that #3 is playing, just because you feel how it impacts on very low frequency vibes which are so straight that they make move anything. And ... no stories here, you just can check it out ! Uhhmm ... not with headphones.

All 'n all you see that there so much to explore which you don't know about yet, and of which you don't know yet how it sounds i.e. how to perceive it, that you really should start tweaking the PC lateron. FIRST you should get rid of standing waves if they are there, just because I say that if you have them, something is wrong with the equipment (hehe, just keep this in mind for some later point in time, when you fully agree with it). Only then you can start judging XX' settings, and only after that you can start the finetuning (which it really would be for XX as per your own experience, I think).


On Windows 2000 ... I am kind of more or less about (etc.  ) sure that this is about the KMixer of XP what this is compared to.
Those who say that W2K sounds (way) better than XP ... I fully believe because of the logic with KMixer. Otoh, they should really compare with Vista/#3 and if *then* W2K sounds different for the better, I am going to find out why and no matter what, copy that "behaviour".
This thread caused me to drag a W2K PC to my house, which I very sadly still didn't listen to because of so many other things to do currently. I really should do it soon ...

Peter

Hi Jack, thank you.

I just got the hunch of what might be going on. I hope to have "some" response in about 26 hours after your last post.
Peter

Hi Frank,

Nice effort you made here. And thanks for sharing the way you did.

I waited a few days whether someone would jump in, but I don't think there's anybody yet who took the effort. Also, there's of course my advise on this in this board : Don't be neurotic on shutting down services and all .

If it were for myself : yes, it should differ, but I expect it not to be audible, and strangely enough I don't feel the need to have it better. Of course I have this second agenda because XXHighEnd was deliberately made for you to avoid all this fuzz, so how could I myself listen to something different from what I advise to you ...

There are a few other things though :

Maybe the most important is that other players won't get stable. With this I mean that what one day is very okay, the other day just is not, and where one CD may sound good, the other just does not. For that matter, my own testing for "a" situation always lasts severeal days without switchting back or AB-ing. In these several days I listen to, say, 20 CDs (rather random) and if they all sound ok, it *is* ok. Also, if they *all* have this flair of whatever it is, this flair is incurred by the player (or my equipment for that matter). Now, with e.g. Foobar there is no consistency. The music-data itself creates the quality of that player, or whatever it is that changes it each time.
I too tweaked my PC(s) to the bone back then.
So keep in mind that "being consistent" is a quality (issue) by itself for PC playback. With the other players I know I get crazy of just that (found your best tweak, but tomorrow it counteracts ) and with XX I just never noticed that.

Oh, and do not use your best CDs to test things, but take the worst CDs to find out quality differences. Okay, maybe not the very worst, but those you were disappointed about so far. On that matter, I provoce the "theory" that you should own 1% or less bad CDs, instead of 50% or more. The latter is just not true, but your player can make them sound like that ...

The other thing I wanted to mention, is that one really should not test this with headphones.
Okay, I was very surprised when the first person here reported that he could hear that XX even sounded better through headphones (which you, say, confirmed), but I did not much expect that. The only thing it tells me that it "works" better even in areas I just did not put my attention to (and nor do I own headphones ).
They key to all is found in the room reflections. I state (and have defined) that when a player is good, room reflections don't bother you. And with XX they just don't (with the kind of prerequisite that your equipment must not destroy all, and with the main cause of impedance mismatches when it does). Not even in the worst rooms (I must say that I never tried an undecorated concrete hall though).
Obviously with headphones the phenomenon just isn't there, let alone how it can make a difference. Maybe it does have its influence ... I just don't know (what and how).

You could read Standing waves and XX on this subject.
To emphasize the matter I can tell you that since XX, my room correction equipment for my two subwoofers could go, and there is no way anymore even they can incur for annoying places in the room. It sounds good everywhere.

All 'n all, when you test XX for improvements or compare with other players, please take this all into account. This is where the differences really are and where the difference is made.

Frank, I too like to hear from others wether they could further improve the soundquality of XX and what they did for that. That's what this board is for.
But I do now want everybody to go out and tweak his/her PC in order to achieve that. Just because it was one of the explicit reasons XXHighEnd was created for : to not have to do just that stupidness. But for those who take the effort like Frank did, rather compare a fully tweaked Foobar et al, with an untweaked XX. I would even be more fair, just because I say tweaking isn't necessary. But have the soundcard out of the PC !! (which would be about SPDIF/passthrough in your (audiophile) cases *or* you use an USB connection and the soundcard is not involved).

Peter

Thanks Edward, you both must have different sutuations. Thank you for your efforts.

Ahh, ok. Well, I'll grab that offer with two hands. But first I have to be reset, I think.

Must I conclude that you never got 64 running (hence just not tried anymore) ?
And that today it doesn't work anyway ?

Yes, it might be important to know whether from 0.9d comes the same as from 0.9d-2. Point is, it should, but again Edward told there was no difference. This is also about the 4 microsoft.directx.* DLLs which are there since 0.9d, of which Edward did not tell that removing them made a difference. I think it just does (and then presents the message from 0.9b you showed).

Don't hurry too much with your answers, since I will be working on some other prio things as well.
Thank you very much Jack !

Peter

Hey Jack,

It really beats me what you are telling me here. This is from that first post :


and

(http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=16.msg20#msg20)

I don't get from this at all that you didn't get x64 running (nor that you were all that time waiting for a solution to it !!).

Also ...
The first picture seems to tell that 0.9d-2  wasn't made for Vista32 (which is true for that version !).
Then, your last picture seems consistent with what Edward was telling, except *he* told nothing changed from 0.9d to 0.9d-2. One of you both must be wrong on something ...


Could you shed a light on what really happened please ?

To start with your last remark :
This was (a possibly too unclear) remark that for the life of me I can't find the latest version of this nowadays. Otoh, you should be redirected to the version that works for "your" PC. This, btw, is the typicle example of Vista Business just not allowing you to install any of this. It just won't. DLL hell (and that's why the DLLs come with the player now, *and* that's why I expected them to be in the way of your 64, which I just did not think of. I'm just being honest here).

I have 6 PC's here and it's really not enough. Not since the various Vista versions matter, we also have XP 64 bit *and* the soundcards matter a bunch in Vista. There really is no way to even think things can be solved this way. Do not forget the player (for Vista) is about Exclusively using the soundcard and all (like direct USB DAC), and already that gives dozens of combinations and situations.

If you mean "use it for trying", of course not. In demo mode the player runs for 34 minutes on average, and you can restart it as long as you want (or get fedup with it, and pay to get rid of that). Anyway, it was my intention to (please) let everybody report if things are not working out, with the main objection of this being a real (and IMHO first) highend player. Nothing to mess with the PC, it just works with the best sound quality, not matter what you (in the mean time) do with your PC. Btw, originally meant for cdp'er people, and all the outlay they need at switching to PC playback for the first time. Never anticipating on a whole world just having all the excotic PC's which is NO excuse !!), and it just grew like this.

For now Edward, Vista too just needs these Redistributables. Just the latest you can find (and I honestly never heard someone about the zip not working out for them -> which I *also* can't test because the Ultimate version(s) *I* have just can do without. And I'm not talking about dev environments (those are lost for starters). Go figure).
I really hope you can get it going.
Let me apologize for not being able to test Vista/64 myself currently. Since yesterday I have freed one PC though, and I will create a dual boot on it with 64. When I can find some time.

edward,

I'm not going against you by any means. I want to discuss it though;

First off, maybe you missed a few things ... maybe I did not make it clear in large capitals ... but this player *is* in beta. And it stays that until I find it proved that everyone reasonably can even run it :

Also please note that I was urged to provide for an unrestricted (time) version and that if it were for me the "demo" stage would have lasted for another year.

Then, so far I have had no indications that the 64bit version wouldn't run, but from you (it would be on this forum then, and if not I just wouldn't know about it).

I could add that this player really wouldn't be the only software which doesn't run under Vista or Vista/64 for that matter.


Which is just true, and maybe you (and I) got tricked by my earlier remark "Hmm ... 64 bit eh ...", which is related to unexpetcted activities just over 1 week ago, where I had to change many things because Vista Business lacking of "audio" stuff. And at that moment I did not think about the 64 bit thing anymore. So I guessed I could have (unintentionally) removed the X64 compiler option ... which turned out I did not (and x64 only doesn't help you either, apparently).

As far as I can think of now you probably didn't download all there is to download (like the DirectX Redistributables (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=11.0)) which would be normal behaviour then, as you described.

Whether it's X64 or not, I want to help you. This is unrelated to paying, and trying it out can be done without paying. If you don't want that, it's okay with me, and a pitty for others might it be X64 indeed. It's the way my business works and I'm okay for over 20 years with that. Really.


It would be nice if someone could confirm Vista 64bit just doesn't startup at all, and gives the message "XXhighEnd does not work anymore". Or that it just does work.
Thanks !

Peter

This one is explicitly compiled for X64 only.

Also ... In your XX directory there will be 4 Microsoft.DirectX DLLs. These 4 DLLs might bother you and you could move them out of the way temporarily. If this latter helps, do not start playing and listening to this 0.9d-2 version, but go back to the normal 0.9d (but leave those DDLs out).

Edit : Removed the zip (did not help).

Ok, "officially" it should just work;
Could you please try withgoing zip ? Put the exe coming from it in your XX directory, and start it.

Several numbers and characters come by (like 001, a, b, c, d, etc.);
Would be so kind to report back what those numbers and characters are before it errors out ?
I hope it even comes up with the first ...

Thanks.