OK, it's a problem with HDCD files...

Mani.

No, I was right first time.

4x AntiImage works, but 4x AP and Linear don't.

The right channel is totally dead. Buffer/Q1 settings don't help.

Mani.

OK, having played around with Special for a while, I've gone back to Adaptive... and it works fine!

Will let you know if I have another issue...

Mani.

Peter, QAP seems to be cutting the right channel. Native 16/44.1 and 24/176.4 works fine.

Love all the new indicators. I actually really like the new GUI! Will take some getting used to though.

Mani.

Not an obvious difference in SQ, but I haven't really AB'd them, as I don't have two identical soundcards. But when I get hold of the two NOS1 DACs , I will AB the two machines.

However, the i7 machine achieves a lower Q1 in Special mode than the E8600 machine - ~90 vs. ~150 samples (IIRC). I'm not sure this is down to processor power though - I'm underclocking the i7 to keep within the 70W max. TDP specified for the Zalman TNN300 fanless case. Another big difference between the machines is the memory - one has G. Skill DDR3-2200 modules, the other G. Skill DDR2-800 modules.

BTW, both machines run at around 40 degrees C and easily pass the Prime 95 test...

Mani.

Hey Peter, thanks for your thoughts - I know you're busy working on 0.9z.

I've sent an email to Dave Peck at Euphonix (now part of Avid), so let's see what he comes back with. I would be amazed if the Model Two is oversampling at 176.4/192KHz rates. Firstly, what filter would it be using? It only has a PMD-100 HDCD filter, which just isn't capable of these rates. Also, there is such a big improvement in SQ between using its on-board 4x upsampling and using QAP in XX - I can't see how this could be possible with a filter in play.

I think the first graph may well be at 1fs, in which case the PMD-100 would certainly be engaged. But the AD/DA graph looks like its at 192KHz, if I'm reading the left-hand pane correctly. But you're right, this is probably still band-limited, so of limited use.

In any event, hopefully Dave Peck will reply and we'll know for sure. I know no-one else is likely interested in this, but I certainly am. If nothing else, I want to know why recordings made on the Model Two sound so different to others... they have an immediately identifiable SQ.

Mani.

Peter, as a reference for your NOS1 DAC, here are some test results of my particular PM Model Two (provided to me by Dave Peck, the only person qualified to service the Model Two):

1) DAC THD test at -10dBFS
2) ADC/DAC test – analogue signal, converted it to digital, looped from the digital out to the digital in, and converted back to analogue – the entire A/D-D/A chain end to end.

Would be interested in your thoughts...

Mani.

Thanks Peter, that's really helpful.

Mani.

Peter, I find the prospect of the NOS1 really exciting.

As I've mentioned before, I'm looking forward to comparing its SQ with that of my PM Model Two - easily the best DAC I've ever heard in my system... I mean, it's in another league to pretty much anything else out there... certainly all the delta-sigma designs that I've heard, which just sound 'broken' to me...

BUT... the PM Model Two was never designed as a DAC. Its real strength is in its recording capability, with its full ladder ADC chips (IMHO, still better than anything available today, with the top-end Lavry stuff coming second), and also its rate conversion capability (which admittedly has probably been superceded now with software-based converters) - the DAC is there just for monitoring purposes. And this is what is really exciting about the NOS1 for me. To finally be able to hear how good recordings made on the PM Model Two really are. Intuitively, I feel PM Model Two recordings played back on the NOS1 will be something very special.

But this leads me to one question for you. When using the Model Two, should I record at 16/44.1 or 24/176.4? The former, I know, will work with Arc Prediction. But in a future release of XX, will I be able to upsample 24/176.4 by 2x or 4x and feed into the NOS1? I'd rather reocrd at the higher rates - the Model Two works internally at either 176.4KHz or 192KHz, and when recording at these rates, no decimation is necessary, which I'm assuming is a good thing.

Mani.

In another thread, Peter said:


Before the next version of XXHE is released, I strongly suggest that you switch back to Engine#3 (WASAPI) and take a listen to it (just set Q1=0). If your experience is anything like mine, you won't be able to listen for more than a short time.

It's a great indicator of just how much better KS Adaptive and Special modes are to WASAPI - remember, the Engine that almost all other so-called 'highend' Windows players are using.

Mani.

Here, here!

Mani.

Hi Roy,

No, actually I want to use them in two separate systems - office and listening/living room. In my 'old' days, I might well have been tempted to go for multiple DACs for my multiamp system, but those days are gone (for now at least). I'm currently using a pair of crossoverless Quad 2805 speakers - just a single NOS1 and stereo amp required.

FWIW, I really like the Quads - it's so good to have totally coherent sound. My one criticism had been that they sound a bit 'dead' - what I call 'cardboard' sound. But with KS Special mode, they have come alive in an amazing way - I'm getting seriously good sound out of them now (powered by an old Pass Labs Aleph 4 single-ended amp that I've had knocking around for years).

Mani.

Marcin,

The Gigabyte P55M-UD4 mobo only has one PCI slot (it has 3 PCIe slots, one of which I'm using for the video card).

I was tempted to buy the PCIe version of my card, but have decided that the money would be better spent contributing towards the two NOS1 DACs that I want.

I if had a PCIe card, would choosing one slot over another make a difference?

Mani.

Hi Fleko,

Sorry, I forgot to mention that in Adaptive, I have Q1=1, buffer=32 (now corrected in initial post). Yes, I know this is low - I built the PC especially to get theses low latencies to work without any glitches. My RME card seems happiest when set to 32 samples.

But I'd like to get the Q1 buffer size down further in Special.

Mani.

Hi y'all,

I'm having the day off, after a few hard days working in Moscow last week. I've just finished some gardening in the glorious UK sun (no, really!), and have spent the last 30 minutes relaxing to some tunes through XXHE.

It occurred to me that I've never actually tried Special mode with my latest PC build, so I decided to give it a go. The first impression is that it's 'sweeter' than Adaptive mode. Adaptive sounds organic and full... if a little 'thick' in comparison.

In any event, I'd like to optimise my system to take full advantage of Special mode. I have been through all the threads on this forum with regards to optimisation ('Tweaking Dead', 'Power Setting', etc, etc) but still have an issue. Here are the lowest latency settings I can achieve:

Adaptive: buffer=32, Q1=1
Special: Q1=92

Any ideas as to how I could decrease the Q1 value in Special even further would be most welcome.

Mani.