XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
September 20, 2019, 02:24:58 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!
Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 50
1  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 09:17:33 pm

I could postpone 2.11 for a while longer by putting in my ToDo a means to automate this copying
Or maybe I can't keep this promise because I would let this go while booted from RAM, and the Mach II/III owners may find their Mach's running (too) hot during the process. I just don't know that. So mind you, as we know, copying the file to RAM takes a minute or two, but copying from disk to disk (SSD to SSD) will take (way) longer. Not CPU intensive at all, but well, I just don't know.

Kind regards,
Peter

Peter,

If it helps copying the Vhd file from a usb 3 attached hard drive to my RAM OS SSD takes 3 - 4 mins for a 20Gb Vbh file whilst in WIN 8 BASE. I don't get any heat issues on my C621 PC whilst the copy takes place. A copy from SSD to the same SSD is going to be quicker.

My feeling is copying the file manually is straight forward. Knowing that this is an occational housekeeping activity and keeping an ear out for a gradually loss of SQ should be enough.

All code for looking forwards to 2.11 as soon as your ready  Wink

Nick.

2  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 06:29:43 pm
Peter hi,

These are really interesting insights and guidance on what to do for the best usage, thank you. So get into RAM OS asap and only dip in and out of non-RAM boots quickly. I may not always able to do this for a while longer but for now I can always just restore the file when needed.

Thanks for the help and kind regards,

Nick.
3  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 05:34:58 pm

Nick, next time, look at the date/time of your vdh file; if you leave out step g of my list, nothing in the world is going to change that file, while it sits in your drawer.

Btw, notice the theoretical language problem (on your side - haha) with "drawer" I literally mean that. Like in the dashboard closet of your car. And explicitly NOT the removable drive bay. And oh, you can let it stay in there if you want (it is not advised at all re SQ) and it still won't change a single bit, but in that case it is not by guarantee (you, knowing yourself etc.). Have it in that drawer, and again tell me what changes it ?
Yeah, the sheer fact that you change it explicitly by means of the copying, does things. Trust me. Whether audible I can't tell, but the location *will* change and all what's required to let your case be a sort of true, is that the memory mapping changes because of that changes too (and my estimate is that it does). Always for the better ? doubtful.
And so how many copies did you apply by now, this afternoon ?

nea

Voodoo is nothing for me, you know. And for your sake, I still hope for a misunderstanding.
Peter

Peter,

Reading this again, I think you may be assuming that I remove my RAM OS disk from the PC once booted into RAM. In fact I proberbly remove the disk only a 1/5 th of the time.  I agree that if the disk is removed safely to the storage "draw" and nothing is saved back to the vhd file at the end of the session then the file just won't change, how could it ? So no change to SQ.

My listening setups are varied and don't often follow the steps in you post above. So the answer lies somewhere here.

Most of the time I play with OS in RAM and with the RAM OS disk in the PC. The Vhd file is mounted.

I also play music in BASE OS mode on occasion  (eg OS not loaded into RAM). The Vhd file is mounted and open for persistent changes I think.

I am in and out of minimised OS mode, now and again to add or remove drivers Eg PCs native sound card / other dacs. Sometimes I will also listen for while in this state. Again the Vhd file is mounted and open to persistent changes.

Finally I reboot a LOT in some sessions, shutdown always gracefully and Bios changes happen between sessions (red black screens etc etc).

So with the way I use my PC, there is opportunity for the file to be changed persistently I think.

With the intricacy of the RAM OS system and Vhd file use, exactly when and if changes happen to a Vhd and how it could become audible is your domain. When the SQ is restored Im just assuming the old file must have changed how I used it, and I am very pleased I am not doing the old 2 hour OS reinstal and system build from a Windows CD.

Kr

Nick.


 
4  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 01:56:10 pm
Peter hi,

I didn't spot that you had replied twice. I am equally dumb founded as to the possible cause at file level. Boy what a thing. What is good is how straight forward it is to restore compared to the old days of 2 hour rebuilds from cd OS installations.

You have given me a thought, I think a couple of refreshes ago I might have kept a copy of an "old" Vhd file. If I can might have a file available to try an A/B of. If I don't have the file I will save the next one.

Nick.
5  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 01:41:41 pm

Quote
I do many, many more reboots and restarts than is going to be normal so my use will certainly be an edge case.

Not from RAM, I presume now ...

Hi Peter,

I almost always boot and play in RAM, I almost always listen that way.
My IT is never left on overnight so at least one boot per session. If I'm working on my PC it could be restarted 5 to 10 times in a session and on occasion this could be without proper shutdown, have a restart after the Vhd file load into RAM has started or Bios changes between boots. So as I say definitely an edge case. I find that I end up refreshing the Vhd about every 3 months.

So lots more possible triggers here, but I thought I would post because it might be possible that unplanned reboots power outages etc over a long period cause the problem for others.

Kr,
Nick.
6  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 01:12:09 pm
d. Right after that you take out the disk.
e. Play for as long as you like, if you only understand that this "degrading" vhd file is in your drawer all the time. Happy

These were my immediate thoughts too.

On average, I'd say that I'm rebooting once every 2-3 months at the moment, in both my systems. If there is some sort of cumulative effect on the vhd file every time you boot from the disk, then I probably wouldn't have been affected much... yet.

Mani.

I agree with you both here, low number of reboots seems likley to prevent the problem. I do many, many more reboots and restarts than is going to be normal so my use will certainly be an edge case.

What I intended to highlight was;

  • the degridation in SQ can happen and,
  • the chances are you wont realise if it has happened
.
The fix is straight forward though if you suspect you need it.

Kr,

Nick.
7  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 10:18:13 am
I do wonder sometimes that we subconsciously need change to keep our interest going.

Robert, IMO this is definitely so. I always noticed with the car stereo; It really does not matter to what brand / new radio you switch, it always exhibits better "stereo" (as in channel separation) as such. Even if you in the end switch back to the first radio.

Peter

Haha I know what you mean. In my system however the refresh of the Vhd file definitely works, you would need cloth ears not to hear the change  Wink.

Its sort of like the days before using RAM OS when reinstalling a version of the OS from fresh would true up sound. Its a real benefit of RAM OS and Vhd images that its so easy just a file copy to get a fresh OS installation.

I do hammer my pc hardware setup so as I mentioned it may be that my setup is an edge case, I do know know that the Vhd refresh has worked in other systems. Logic would say that loading the same virtual disk image into RAM each time the PC is booted would not change the image / sound but maybe going in and out of the base file system might cumulatively cause a change.


Just keen to get this out there, if it works in another system you will know believe me, it not a new radio brand Happy. If it dosen't do anything it will have only taken a few mins to give it a go so nothing really lost.

Kr,
Nick.

Ps I will post a sort step description of the copy I am doing when I have access to my PC later.
8  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 04, 2019, 09:57:51 am


I have a mental note to periodically refresh my Vhd OS file in this way. This morning I did it whilst taking some before and after FFTs of the system response and there are some clear differences. You don't need the FFTs to hear it make a difference but they made me think it was worth sharing.



Nick, I would be most interested to see these FFT's.

Anthony, they were taken with a phone app (although using a calibrated mic) and I didn't save them. I was not really meaning to prove this or even post but afterwards thought it might be useful for others to know about.

IIRC the stand out differences in the ffts before refreshing the Vhd file were noticable roll off above 8k and lower amplitude between 3k and 7k. Lower frequencies were similar in the FFts but that only shows amplitude response. With the refreshed Vhd this range significantly tightens up so transients and tone resolution is probably improving in this range. 

Kr

Nick.
9  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / RAM OS .Vhd file refresh on: August 03, 2019, 03:16:37 pm
Hi fellow RAM OS disk users,

I thought I would post this in case it helps anyone using the RAM OS HDD disk. This situation has come up quite regularly for me so I think it is a real effect (its also possible that the effect is down to me doing stuff to my audio PC system that most other people will not be doing).

Over time (think a few months of regular use) I experience what I think are very slow cumulative changes in SQ. They amount to rolled off highs, lack of musical dynamic slightly muddied bass and a generally untidy sound.

What has helped correct this on many occasions now is to refresh the RAM OS .vhd file that I am using. I do this by booting into the WIN 8 BASE OS version and then deleting .vhd file version I am using and then coping a "fresh" copy of the same file back to replace the deleted copy. Most importantly the fresh copy has not been used to play music before eg it is an origionaly copy of the OS file that was provided by Peter. Then I have a couple of XX settings I have to reapply and its all good to go.

I have a mental note to periodically refresh my Vhd OS file in this way. This morning I did it whilst taking some before and after FFTs of the system response and there are some clear differences. You don't need the FFTs to hear it make a difference but they made me think it was worth sharing.

The pick up in sound quality with the fresh Vhd copy can be very surprising  Wink. And its so convenient to refresh the entire audio PC OS with just one file copy thanks to Peters RAM OS disk.

I hope this work for and helps others who have been playing with the same .Vhd for a long time.

Kr,

Nick.

___________________________________________________

Update.

The update below is to clarify and provide a step by step description of the remady....

The idea behind this post is that over time (and posibly by unitended missuse) something happens (ie is changed) in the vhd image file that is mounted at boot time and that this causes sound quality to be degraded. The "improvment" I am highlighting in SQ is really the "restoring" of the sound quality to that origionally intended by the RAM OS system. My experiance is that the degridation in SQ of a given instance of a MYW10-14939.vhd virtual disk image file takes place slowly over a relativly long time period and can be quite significant. The slow change means its hard to detect, but also very nice when SQ is restored to its normal level again. There is no chance of missing the change.


The restoration to the intended RAM OS SQ is simply achived by deleting the version of the MYW10-14939.vhd file that has up untill now been used to run the Audio PC, and replacing this file with a fresh copy of the file made from the backup version MYW10-14939 - copy.vhd of the file.


I have been performing the following steps.


1) boot into Win 8 BASE OS

2) open explorer and delete the current version of the disk image file I suspect might have degraded SQ. I use W10 14939 so the file deleted is MYW10-14939.vhd which is in the root directory of the D: drive on the RAM OS disk.

3) replace the deleted file by making a fresh version of the deleted file by making a copy of the backup version of the file MYW10-14939 - copy.vhd. Then rename this newly created copy  to MYW10-14939.vhd so that this then new copy now becomes the file that the RAM OS system will boot from when W10 14939 is selected.

4) run XX (still in Win 8 BASE) to use the "boot into" XX screen to select the 14939 BASE operating systen and reboot.

5) when the system reboots into the 14939 BASE I make any changes needed to XX player settings to get back to my normal setup (eg sfs x-tweeks etc).


10  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: June 22, 2019, 07:10:54 pm
Peter,

I tried Atmos track 3. It presents as quite bland here with a too heavy drum beat at 55hz. I definatly can see where the performers are going with it and get a sense of what it could be but the sparkle and shimmer in the mid / top end electronic voice sounds never quite happens to make the track pop.

Now if 2.11 can make this spell binding that would certainly be something very special...

Nick.
11  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: June 21, 2019, 08:58:50 pm
Hi Nick interesting. Some of us went back to custom settings preferred to Arc. I think this was at the time you made some changes back in March this year. I still prefer Custom settings low 705600. Peter's settings online are out of date. Probably best to wait for next version 2.11 which will have even different settings I'm guessing. But you are right the sound does go off somewhat after fresh bootup, although I find it ok for a day at least.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Im back to straight arc prediction again at the moment. I managed to get the highs very detailed but smooth here so unfiltered is working nicely at the moment.

I am certainly looking forwards to Peter releasing 2.11. That is a strong statement he made above about being like a new PC or Dac. Its going to be fun  Happy.

Kind regards,
Nick
12  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: June 21, 2019, 07:51:12 pm
I think I may have come across another music initialization condition that could be of use for sound quality...

Thanks for sharing Nick. But I hope you don't mind if I give this one a miss - I think it'd be the straw that breaks this particular camel's back  no

Mani.

Mani,

Its a nice sound, problem is when I have been listening today I keep thinking wouldn't this be great with the nice sound, then its Click click click click.... click click click ..... click click click ..... ahhhhhhh ! Definitely too much setting up so don't blame you.

I hope that it works at Peter's (dont even know if it will be repeatable in other systems) and that Peter feels its worth / can be incorporated into XX. Although it sounds like Peter has way way more in store for SQ in 2.11. Can't wait  Happy

Nick.
13  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: June 21, 2019, 02:49:28 pm
Peter hi,

You will discover a new SQ feature in 2.11 which looks mighty much similar to what you describe, with the difference that I know what it is doing internally in the program. I still would not be able to reason any culprit or explicit "feature" as such, but it is controllable and looks to have the same behavior as your finding as of now.
In my case the sound changes so drastically that it factually requires different settings elsewhere (like a new PC or new DAC - to name something - LOL).

I'm really looking forwards to 2.11, it sounds like there is going to be some real fun using it.

Transparency and live qualities have progressed so far in the last 2 years with your new cables, latest XX versions and 621 based PCs. I don't think it would have been so easy to be sure of the changes in sound quality in this post before but now it just stands out so clearly. Iv been trying it out some more this morning, once you know its there its hard to listen without the nice sound set. I hope its possibly for it to somehow be built into the way XX initiates playback. Its already becoming a bind playing the 192k file and changing settings backwards and forwards.

PS: You are mad as well; how else could you find out.  Happy

Haha, yes I think I might be. Its been an obsession lately wringing sound quality out of my system. Mainly PC and Orelo setup work but certainly worth the effort. This SQ thing showed up I was when repeatedly playing 192k sweep files to EQ my bass and listening for SQ changes  Happy

A slightly different topic but I think another factor that impacts the SQ 621 boards when they used from cold is the oscillator. Its located under the chipset heatsink and that whole area goes from ambient to circa 60-70 degrees as the board warms up. I am pretty sure this changes the oscillator speed as the temp goes up proberbly by something of the order of -100 to 400hz. In my case this reduces amplitude of highs and increase bass slightly. I prefer sound cold but in other systems the speed change could just as likley to improve sound depending on the clock speeds of other parts of the system. Im running with a fan on the chipset's heat sink just now but a more perminant fix is coming  Happy

I hope this 192k nice sound thing can be reproduced and proves useful.

Kind regards,

Nick.
14  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: June 20, 2019, 06:28:44 pm
Peter hi,

I think I may have come across another music initialization condition that could be of use for sound quality, similar to the q1 q1x setting further up in this thread.

Over the past couple of months I have noticed that my system always has a particually live sound (eg extra dymanic, strong presence and very nice highs) when I first boot everything up and play the first few tracks each day. I could not pinpoint when this nice initial sound stopped but later in a listening session, although the sound is still very very good, the super nice initial sound is gone.

Whilst doing some equlisation testing I stumbled on a way to swich this nice initial sound on and off. I wounder, if this also works for you and if might be able to pinpoint / exploit what is going on. It seems like playing a 192k with no upsampling / arc prediction could be resetting something important to sound quality that makes the sound quality of 44.1k 705.6k upsampled tracks beter when played straight afterwards.


First getting the not so nice sound.

Play any 44.1k sample track at 705.6k with arc prediction and whilst playing change volume down then up a 1.5 db click whilst listening. Now stop playback and play the next track at you normal volume.  This gives the not so nice sound for me.

With the sound now not so nice play any 44.1k track you know the sound of especially well to see how it sounds (this will be your track B in the next stage that you should compare how it sounds now with nice sound I hope you get from the next step).

(If the above process does not result in the not so nice sound for you, maybe just listen to you test track B after a long playback session of a few hours and then try the next step.)

To get the nice sound.

First play any 192k track (track A), importanly set arc prediction OFF and with NO upsampling ie 192k samples per sec going to the dac. Now stop track A playing and select track B in your playlist (the track you selected that you know very well). Play this track with arc prediction back ON and back at 705.6k samples per second, and listen to the changed sound. Here there is a quite a significant difference with track B now being much more present and musical, no decernable down sides. If there are more tracks following track B in your playlist these will also playback with the nice sound.

My XX settings are pretty much identical to your signature and are up to date in my signature

Could this be useful ?

Best regards,

Nick.
15  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 2.10 sound quality on: March 17, 2019, 11:21:52 pm
Hey Peter,

I had guessed that you might have been looking at the possible reasons for the SQ differences. 60k lines of C that is some program.  It's a facinating explanation of what could be happening, thank you.

So I think you are saying that buffer size is the simple product of q1 an xq1, but q1 is also used elsewhere in the engine by itself to influance timing. Now you have explained this it may make sense in terms of what I hear. The SQ difference I get when selecting a lower q1 value (of course whilst ensuring the q1, xq1 product remains the same) is similar in character to changing the timer resolution setting.

It's good to know my hearing is not changing slightly each time q1 and xq1 "pairs" are changed  Happy

Quote

One thing I have in mind for very sure : the best sound I have now emerged 3 days ago after a reboot, but this was a special reboot which applied something special ... new to 2.11 ...


I am really looking forwards to this, I cannot wait.....

Kr,

Nick.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 50
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 12 queries.