|
1653
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 02, 2010, 10:58:28 am
|
Yes, I get the idea, but notice this is nothing like you said before (that implied detachment of the 2nd SSD). I've never mentioned or implied detachment of the 2nd SSD! In my first post in this thread I said: ... I installed the second new SSD in my main PC also. So, one SSD for the OS and the other for XX... No detachment, just 2 SSDs. I think I've been totally consistent with this. What's kind of frustrating for me is that it took me < 5 minutes to check the difference in SQ between XX sitting on SSD0 and SDD1. It's trivial to test, if you have 2 SSDs. It kind of reminds me of the frustration I faced when I was trying to convince Romy (the Cat) to try slaving his Lynx card to his DAC - he just wouldn't try it, even though it would cost him no money and would take less than a minute, because he was convinced it shouldn't make a difference. But eventually he did, and you can guess what the outcome was. But look, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're all right - that Vista is indeed better than W7. There is no question that I will try it... Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1654
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 02, 2010, 10:00:34 am
|
I try to avoid rebooting the PC because that old SSD is really wack... Peter, please don't do anything that might jeopardise your refound listening pleasure. But I'm not sure we're on the same page. I simply created an XX folder on my c: drive and extracted all the XX files into this folder and activated XX. That's all. No reboot required. So, I now have a version of XX on my c: drive (alongside W7) and a version of XX on the dedicated d: drive. Apart from restarting AutoHotkey each time, it's easy to switch between the two identical versions of XX. And what is unmistakable is that there is a big difference in SQ. Not subtle one... a big one. And remember that both c: and d: drives are identical - new OCZ Vertex 2 90GB drives. It's my curiosity speaking here. I'd just like to know if 2 drives make a difference with Vista, as they do with W7. But if I were you ... just go for it. You won't be sorry. Oh, I will. But I'd like to incorporate Roy's ideas first. Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1655
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 01, 2010, 08:46:48 pm
|
|
Peter, could you just load XX onto your OS (internal?) drive and see if there is a difference in SQ please. Before I start installing Vista, I'd like to eliminate the separate XX SSD from the equation (in your setup anyway).
There is a BIG difference in SQ in my setup. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because my XX SSD in formatted as exFAT and not NTFS... but who knows.
Mani.
|
|
|
|
|
1656
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 01, 2010, 06:53:19 pm
|
In any event, it will be very, very easy for me to check whether 2 SSDs are better than one. I will simply install XX on both SSDs and figure out if there is a difference between them. Peter, I guess you could do the same with your current setup, no? OK, absolutely NO PLACEBO!!! Two SSDs (W7 on one and XX on the other) sounds significantly better than everything on one SSD. With two, the sound is full, fluid and totally non-fatiguing. But I have not yet optimised the OS SSD. Will report back when I do this... EDIT Just checked and NTFS is already optimised. So,there is no question in my mind that 2 drives are better than one... and maybe it has nothing to do with Vista vs W7... Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1657
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 01, 2010, 02:50:37 pm
|
|
Yes, I've probably misunderstood.
In any event, it will be very, very easy for me to check whether 2 SSDs are better than one. I will simply install XX on both SSDs and figure out if there is a difference between them. Peter, I guess you could do the same with your current setup, no?
I'm not sure if this is important, but I have the XX SSD formatted as exFAT. Referring back to one of Roy's earlier posts, I will optimise the OS SSD, which is currently formatted as NTFS, before listening to the two.
But I'm bracing myself for a new Vista install...
Mani.
|
|
|
|
|
1658
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 01, 2010, 02:32:25 pm
|
Mani hi,
With regards to your 2 SSD setup, I think that the extra performance the second drive brings coulds be the removal of a spinning drive motor and drive electronics from the system. My PC runs one SSD with my normal hard drive "parking" after a 1 min of not being used (it doesn’t spin back up at all during music play back). I got similar musical results to what you are describing, no placebo. I seem to remember reading that you have a fanless setup but hears one to try if I’m wrong. Temporally disconnect your CPU fan's power (and other case fans) and listen to a track before and afterwards (Sorry I know you know this, but others reading may not - be VERY careful with CPU temperature, I can listen to about a track and a half before my CPU get to about 60 deg C and I put the CPU fan back on). This gives simlar improvements in sound to adding an SSD in my system. Yeah, I can see how adding an SSD for XX alongside an HDD for the OS might improve sound, for the reasons you cite. To be clear though, I was adding another SSD for XX alongside an existing SSD for the OS, and still hearing an improvement in the sound... I think! But I will certainly remain open to the chance that this may well have been a placebo. In a way, I hope it is - I really don't want to use two expensive SSDs in a single PC. So, your idea may provide the ideal situation - use an HDD for the OS (which should spin down during playback) and an SSD for XX. Maybe... Yes, I have a totally fanless/silent setup, with CPU/GPU heatpipes connected to heatsinks on the outside of the case. Set to max clock rate, my average CPU core temps remain ~50 Celcius, with the GPU even cooler. So sorry, I have no suggestions wrt CPU heatsinks. Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1659
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: We all fell in the W7 pitfall
|
on: October 01, 2010, 11:37:20 am
|
... the only real difference is that the OS is now on the old OCZ SSD and/thus that now two SSDs are in the system. I've been using two SSDs for the last 6 months or so. Recently, I bought a couple of new 'faster' SSDs, with a view to using a single one in two different PCs. But you may recall that I had a problem with 'ticks'. It transpired that this actually had nothing to do with the new SSD, or indeed using a single instead of two SSDs in the PC - it was a bug in XX. But in trying to eliminate the ticks, I installed the second new SSD in my main PC also. So, one SSD for the OS and the other for XX, just like I had for the last 6 months, but with newer SSDs. AND... Now this is probably a complete placebo on my part, but I could have sworn that the sound was smoother with two SSDs - less aggressive. So Peter, is it Vista, or is it because you're using two SSDs??? Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1660
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: September 30, 2010, 12:32:57 am
|
For anyone who's interested, after quite extensive listening, my 'new' SFS values are:
35 - for non-upsampled 16/44.1 material
50 - for non-upsampled 24/176.4 material
50 - for QAP upsampled 16/44.1 material
These seem to be the 'Goldilocks' values for my system as it currently stands. My new Goldilocks value is 36 for all material. Does anyone have an explanation as to why the SFS affects the sound so much? How is it that we're all pretty much hearing the same thing (irrespective of our preferred SFS value)? Reducing the SFS below the Goldilocks creates a 'thin' and 'shouty' sound. Increasing it beyond the Goldilocks creates a 'thick' and 'too mellow' sound. What the hell is going on here? Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1661
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: PeakExtend ON or OFF?
|
on: September 30, 2010, 12:07:31 am
|
At the dawn of 'Arc Prediction', Peter wrote: Notice that things could really improve for SQ again if I first drop the volume a bit and *then* apply QAP. I'm working in these areas anyway, so I could apply a checkbox for that, so you (we all) can test that.
Notice that I always use attenuated digital volume in the first place, and it is really done in a good/harmless way. Whenever I use PeakExtend, I seem to lose low-level detail. The ambience of a venue gets lost. Instruments don't quite 'breathe' fully any more. (Of course, I'm taking into account the 3dB attenuation that PE imposes and readjusting the volume control!) Peter, are you sure that the PE attenuation is done in a good/harmless way??? Could you just check the code when you have a minute please? Mani. |
|
|
|
|
1663
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: A WARNING about SSD's ...
|
on: September 29, 2010, 10:03:50 pm
|
But think about your Galleries. I don't use Galleries. Right now, I have the front cover jpeg (and for some albums the back cover jpeg) sitting in the same folder as the music files for that album. XX displays the front/back cover perfectly. Should I be using Galleries? What would that do for me? Mani. PS Anyone would think that I've just started using XX! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
