XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
August 14, 2022, 03:07:32 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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
226  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ? on: February 16, 2009, 06:00:04 am
Earlier versions was not uniformly better than todays, no, IMO. The right description would be more like a rollercoaster ride with incredible ups and downs...

There has been gold nuggets all around. But there's been a lot of cr*p too... Happy

(Beeing truthfully here, hope you don't mind, P!)

What I really would like to see in XX is support for either a simple EQ with some 16-20 bands, or possibilities for linking to e.g. Audiolense etc.

Then each of our (very different) choice of TASTE in SQ reproduction will be taken care of in a good way. I for one would be very happy with an standard EQ.

Sry about the distraction somewhat from the disc. about the NOS and other DACs but the issue kind of cropped up earlier in this thread...

But don't typical EQs mess with the phase in a way that just destroys... you'll be chasing your tail forever? Not saying "don't do it Peter", but ... maybe there's a reason he hasn't done it.  EQs and xovers settings are harder to implement (and maybe impossible somewhat) than we all may think.  I agree it's been an up and down ride, but I think we've been heading in the right direction...(says me with being very happy right now and too scared to move to X version hehe).  What worries me is when Peter ups several changes quickly and I dl them without evaluating them against a good old player... I think that happened with later V versions and early W versions and I got lost ... There was some good things and some bad things that happened.... made it confusing.
227  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 16, 2009, 05:50:57 am
Ok, some more testing, better at my place ATM: 4,30,30,17,17.

More fullness, not just etched "pictures".

Sounds natural, good bass etc.

Tested with Jennifer Warnes The Well album.


Hi
I really have wanted to make sure I had a handle on 4 30 30 0 0 before trying Q4 q5
Just want to see if you made a good listen to Q4 Q5 @ 0 0 before playing with them at 17 17 ... I've got to move into X version soon, so I want to really know W9 @ 4 30 30 0 0 before jumping, (so know more experimenting for me just yet), but I'll be really looking forward to see what Q4Q5 do.
228  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Weird DPC latency stuff on: February 16, 2009, 05:41:01 am
Was checking my DPC score because of a post at Audio Asylum...http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/4/46308.html
(DPC Latency checker)
http://www.thesycon.de/eng/latency_check.shtml
ok here's my weird thing I just found on my system.
Was checking again what my DPC ran at with the player on; before have only checked it with the player off.
With the player off (no music running),,, I get a steady 62us
With the music running,,, it bounces from 12us to 20us... That's right, it's lower with me playing music ... now that's weird.
Maybe because I play unattended and it gets rid of wallpaper/desktop icons?
229  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 15, 2009, 07:08:13 pm
I tried going down again (from the 30 30s) and tried to listen to 24 24 for awhile (invert and non-invert).  Went down to 17 17 and stayed there for awhile (invert and non-invert).  I am still on the last version: 9W-9b.  I still like the fullness, soundstage, highs purity, lack of leaness, lack of digital sound/jitter? (finding this to be big) ... of 4 30 30 0 0 plus invert settings.  Peter, did you let your guests get used to this setting?  invert/non-invert? It is a big change (maybe threw them at first), and in some respects doesn't sound "audiophile"/typical stereo to me (I like more of a wall of sound, rather than pinpoint imaging; 4 30 30 0 0 moves more toward a wall of sound, still great imaging in my book, but...), but it does sound more live to me.  I admit it may be my speakers which have the tweeters running flat out (all six) and that between the midbass & low-mids can sound lean (taken care of with 4 30 30 0 0 invert)...or maybe just my dac likes it?
But even going down to just 24 24 seemed to take away some magic focus/better phase, and melded realism the system exhibits at 30 30.  Plus I really felt pulling it down brought some digititis back...this was one night of listening... things change, I'll listen again after changing to the X series, but it's hard to pull away from the great sound I FEEL I'm getting now.
230  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 07, 2009, 07:43:36 pm
Back to the piano, I was shocked what happened to it; Suddenly it was in a way larger room, and suddenly it seemed that it was played with the sustain pedal pressed always. Also keep in mind my remark on how it sounded before, which I called "dry", which would just be about the damping pedal. The difference was so huge that you immediately start to think "can this be right ?".

After this first album I have played many more by now, and everything keeps on sounding the same : an enormous hall around everything.
Btw, while this could be described as "spacious" I think this is a wrong description, because I would dedicate that to "space in between instruments", "with air in between them". And this is exactly not what I mean. Rather the opposite ...


Look at these two quotes Peter and I think this is what I was trying to say in my first brief listen post.  In your first quote you're saying the room became larger and could hear more pedal... this is me trying to say soundstage came forward with more solid detail.  When things become dry in a system too, they move back in the soundstage and become wispy, not solid.
 In your second quote you say "spacious" is the wrong word... yes for me things became "more", larger yes, but images of instruments melded together in a natural way.  I think it is a fallacy of some peoples soundstages that they have little bubbles of instruments and they think it is good they can point to this instrument playing here and this instrument playing there....  When I go to a string quartet live it can be very hard to point exactly to it within the ensemble ... they play and mesh together while still retaining detail... this is what I'm hearing better with 4 30 30 0 0 ... having to write quick as I have to head out, but hope I'm putting in words the great things I'm hearing.

btw
pedal says
"...it doesn't sound hard or edgy..."
This is big for me ... I was blaming my system, but I'm now wondering if XXHE V, early W versions were causing a hardening in my system.  Things are sounding much better now.
231  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 07, 2009, 07:27:40 pm
Hiyall!!!
I've been very busy, and when I'm not, I'm listening to music.  I can't pull myself away. I'm still using 0.9w-9b; haven't tried newest sorry.  I'm still using 4 30 30 0 0 plus Invert and have not found a need to pull away from this (I don't want to mess with Q4 Q5 yet).  I will start exploring sometime, but I just want to enjoy this "best ever" feeling I'm having right now.  I agree completely with Pedal, and if you read my brief initial post here you'll see I agree with your post Peter right above.  I've tried moving Q2 Q3 down (17 on up trying invert/noninvert), but didn't care for it anywhere near as much as right up to 30 30 plus invert.  Thanks for suggestion of using piano ... really helps to tell if you're moving in the right direction.
As you can tell from my first post, I thought the soundstage moved forward and was more full with 4 30 30 0 0, but something told me to try invert... imagine my surprise when I found invert moved things more forward still and locked in the image more!  It's not like I thought things were "sucking" when invert was off, but with it ticked, it just sounds better.  Don't get me wrong, I still get a very full front to back soundstage, but the images are more solid and detailed and much more in the room than something hazy floating in the back of the soundstage like I get with 4 0 0 0 0.  With 4 30 30 0 0 the bass is as powerful, tuneful as I've ever heard... I like it, it seems very phasure.  Lyric intelligibility is as top notch as I've ever heard ... background/buried voices have moved forward and can be heard with a clarity I've never heard.
232  Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: Shutting down Windows sounds on: February 07, 2009, 04:01:51 am
right click speaker icon
left click "sounds"
uncheck "Play Windows Sounds" at the bottom
create a "no sounds" scheme in Sound Schemes near the top
Now you can choose between schemes....
233  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: February 01, 2009, 03:39:11 am
Would also like help with this notion.
Using 4 30 30 0 0
I've found today that selecting "invert" chk box is probably sounding better with these Q settings.  Need to try it with that same piano piece and should do it with Qs just at 4 0 0 0 0 to see,... but with 3 other recordings I've played with I thought it locked the image in better/centered and pushing out more not sucking.

edit
night night
just spent a very very enjoyable evening of listening to 4 30 30 0 0  plus invert on a variety of music.
234  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Q experiment anyone ? on: January 31, 2009, 06:35:42 am
Beethovan - Ivan Moravec - Piano Sonatas Vol 2
Sonata No. 23 1st movement
(A)  Q1 4 Q2345 @ 0  vs  (B)  Q1 4 Q2 30 Q3 30 Q4 0 Q5 0
In comparison:
(A) was laid back; (B) was moved forward
(A) less detail; (B) more detail  [could better hear his "humming" on (B) ... is that a good thing? hehe; (B) highs were more clangy ,  lows more robust and congealed
(A) notes more distinct from each other; (B) notes melded more less distinct but began to hear this as more realistic as he hammers away at lots of lows.  This music gets very complex fast with lots of banging on the keyboard... (A) was more laid back, less full; (B) was more robust, more powerful.  I think at first I liked (A) better, then after listening to (B) I went back to (A) and found I missed the complex harmonics of (B)....I was sitting closer to the piano in (B).

btw, I tried the settings I had been listening to
4,5,1,0,2
and found it didn't work as well for this realistic classical piano as either A or B ... it was ok I guess though, only listened a little to my settings at the end of this session.

k so I did this your way, very brief, one song, dunno if it will hold up over time, but I'll be listening to (B) for awhile with other music too ... thoughts are still running through my head about it as I think,,, if something else pops up I'll modify this.
235  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9w-9 on: January 31, 2009, 03:18:00 am
S:
what amplifiers and speakers do you use?just to place your impressions in a context
best
Leif
Here's a link to pictures in my system... horribly bad pictures because the point&shoot cheap camera was dropped ... but, you'll get an idea.  I listen to a lot of psychedelic/rock, bluegrass, classical, jazz ,,, ya that's it.
http://gallery.AudioAsylum.com/cgi/view.mpl?UserImages=6645&invite=
236  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9w-9b on: January 30, 2009, 04:57:29 am
again
.9w-9b
I am really liking what i'm hearing.  I have not had a lot of time this week to tweak the Qs; they've basically stayed on
4,5,1,0,2
Right now I'm listening to
Roxy Music - Siren
an old rock album that I've never considered recorded well, but awesome music, if you like rock.  I've had the LP and now this cd/wav, and it's sounding better than I've ever remembered it sounding (SQ wise).  If I just leave Q1 at 4 and all the other Qs at 0, it loses a lot of the magic I'm hearing... so thank you for the added Qs.  A lot of exploring to do, (I've decided to leave a pencil/pad of paper by the computer to record Q combos and impressions), but we're off to a great start here.  I think I'm playing stuff louder than ever now too.... I have to watch that. hehe
237  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Screen/Video crash with 0.9-w6 on: January 29, 2009, 03:32:41 am
I will move the Q1 slider back to where it was ...

I really like having all the Qs under the tab QControl.  I think there was only confusion because experienced XXHE people were looking for it in the usual place.  New users, who would naturally explore XXHE, will find it easily under the QControl tab, and Vets of XXHE just need to have their attention directed to it.  I for one, hope you don't move it back; you may find it gives you some layout control later on.

4,5,1,0,2
sounding very full and rich; i likea
238  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Screen/Video crash with 0.9-w6 on: January 28, 2009, 05:36:18 am
Peter

Quality setting:
In my previous post, I commented on setting to 24. However looking back at the program I see that it was NOT Quality set to 24, rather Q1=parameter 24 in 09-w8.
However, in 09-w09b the Q1 Parameter setting is missing - this is what I was referring to as Quality setting missing - sorry my mistake (causing confusion).
Thus my question: Has Q1 slider been eliminated in 09-w09b, or am I in fact missing something?

Bjorn

The new Q settings can be found under their own tab now called QControl.
It will be a long time until I post any feelings about them, but
4,8,1,0,2
Then again, those numbers will change faster than two shakes of a lambs tail.
239  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Off topic PC question on: January 27, 2009, 02:27:43 am
I've never quite got the hang of bios settings and usually am happy with the "auto" settings rather than overclock, but,
I was wondering if someone could clue me in as to whether the ram I have for my system is running at the 1066
it is capable of:

OCZ Reaper HPC 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227289

and
a pic of cpu-z
240  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Can't see Q sliders under on: January 25, 2009, 11:49:29 pm
Here it is from W9
Will try W9a after lunch
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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
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.