XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
April 18, 2024, 06:15:39 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 ... 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
526  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Volume Control(s) on: September 16, 2007, 04:25:27 am
From a post about the "Memory Player" PeterSt says "...Oh, but I can tell you that with 32 bits that's perfectly allowed *and* far better than an analogue volume...".  http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=91.msg1032#msg1032

Are you planing to add volume control to the player, (that I assume won't ruin SQ)?  That would be great for me.  At the moment, for me to change volume I have to adjust 4 knobs.  I've gotten pretty good at it, but still a bit of a pain.  The one thing nice about adjusting four volumes is I can dial in balance very well and have learned that quite a few albums "lean" to one side or another.

My suggestion/hope would be that you might create a digital volume control for each channel with very fine gradations... not like most balance controls that are too big a leap in volume to be useful.  Perhaps you could "lock" the two together for those that don't want the hassle and an "unlock" feature for those that would like to tweak?  Just throwing it out to you PeterSt.
527  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: J vs. K version SQ on: September 16, 2007, 04:10:00 am
After testing some with both the J and the K version today, I must give a nod towards better SQ from the J version. In comparison the K version sound flatter with much less depth information and generally duller and rounder, unfocused. One of the strengths of J is a VERY good depth recital. I can hear like 10-20m into the sound-picture. Became edgy and disinterested after an hour of playback with K. J makes me relax and really enjoy the music and become involved.

I also hear a lot more air around the performers with J.

Ended up going back to J version and preferring that to the new K.

Using XP and Engine #1, 44.1 output to Lexicon MC-12B DAC/Pro.

Will try out the D version tomorrow and compare it to J.

Impression so far: K was a misstep in evolution as SQ is concerned. J is HighEnd. At least for my platform.

I'm afraid if you like the J version over K, that you probably won't prefer the D version.  Give it a listen though.  To me, J and versions right after D sound striped down down of harmonics/timbre, one reason why they sound so crystal clear and pinpoint imaging.  I'm guessing you've moved the Q1 slider about and tried reversing phase?
528  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 16, 2007, 12:40:46 am
YEA for K
I'm very happy with the SQ for K.  Yes, I had to go back and forth with D (my preferred reference) to be sure.  The two players sound different and I prefer K.  Better resolution, highs more "bell" like (cymbals) with much better air for K.  Bass has changed, but only in tightening up a bit and low bass hitting me in even a better position.... did not have to change subwoofer settings... I like Q1 13/12 better than 14, although haven't moved it around too much from the 14 point.  One thing that bothered me with the older players past D was a perception that the music was "uneven" music/notes jumping out at me unnaturally... this doesn't happen with K, K being very whole and of one piece.  Have not experimented with invert phase but haven't played a recording that needed it... i know they're out there (ie Miles Davis Kinda Blue... I'll try it soon).  On Wicked Tinkers - Bangers for Breakfast I noticed during a track change, talking part, that I could hear bagpipe music playing way buried in the background and realized it must be that they recorded over analog tape and I was hearing "bleed through" that I had never heard before.  Much better lyric intelligibility much better resolution than D.  (much is hyperbole... but there it is).  Good job imo of holding onto the best parts of D (bass/cohesiveness) and giving me the air of the latter players.  Oh and the support for cue files much appreciated... I put albums on and listen all the way through more than setting up playlists, but when I have time maybe I'll start doing that more.  I would like to add CUE files from the Library button rather than explorer... but who's complaining, not me.  Happy Camper.
529  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Buglist as per September 13, 2007 on: September 15, 2007, 05:40:54 pm
I was just thinking, in the case of people wanting larger album pictures.... maybe a TAB (like the playlist, settings... tabs) that you'd click and it would show nothing but a larger picture of the album playing.... then maybe keep the playlist tab as is??  I dunno, I don't care much about it; my screen shuts off after a min of nonuse, which pretty much is the case when listening to music.
530  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Idiot alert - what are cue files on: September 15, 2007, 02:38:44 am
[sarcasm]Cue files were created for me by EAC and only used by me[/sarcasm]
If you use EAC (PlextoolsXL does this too) you'll notice on the left hand side is an IMG button you can push to rip your CD.  This will rip your CD into a single wav file plus a cue file that holds all the song titles and timing.  I suggest people rip a CD with this IMG button into a single wav file and also rip a CD their usual way with multiwav songs... and listen back and forth and see if you hear a difference.  I also think that having a single wav plus cue files possibly? retains the original cd info (gaps and more?) than breaking your cds into multiwavs.... k, tell me I'm wrong.
531  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 13, 2007, 04:30:17 am
Hi Peter,
Just wanted to let you and everyone know that I've been very busy and doing a lot of other things this week.  I promise I'll evaluate between players this weekend.  I'm back teaching right now that summer is over and went to a Pinback concert last night.  I've listened for fun last night for a small bit before falling asleep to the music, and will again tonight, and maybe the rest of the week, to 0.9K.  But won't doing any back and forth evaluating until this weekend.  First blush is sounding very cohesive, nothing jumping out of place, lyrics very intelligible; I'll listen for bass and other differences this weekend.  So no words from me yet.  Hope all the rest of you are enjoying the player too.  Just didn't want you to get anxious because of no posts.  Hope you're getting some fun listening time in too PeterSt.
532  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 11, 2007, 05:25:05 am
K Just got home, and looked quickly here, saw the new version of .09K, and quickly loaded it up.  OMG I wasn't expecting cue support so you know I'm excited.  No SQ judgements yet... haven't listened.  All I've done is check setting and then dragged a file from explorer.  First off started clicking to see if I could upset/trip it up....tried a second file too.  Works flawlessly so far!!!!  When I drag the huge single WAVs from explorer the cue file info shows up!!!YEA!  album art too!!  K, prolly won't be able to evaluate SQ until tomorrow, but I'll let it play for a bit... sounds good in the background as I work around the house.  Don't let my lack of saying anything about SQ second guess... I haven't listened, just loaded it two seconds ago and wanted to let you know THANKS and that it works well here on the two files I clicked around furiously on... drag bar too... better than J... I would get errors with J.  alright, I'll get to you later... hope you're sleeping now Peter... truly a saint!
533  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: foobar 2000 vs XXHE .09i-1 on: September 09, 2007, 04:41:22 pm
Have also done extensive testing of Foobar, MP 11, J River, VLC, Nero Showtime, XXHighEnd etc. and compared them all. Running C2D @ 3.5Ghz, 4GB memory, XP Pro English, .net 2 and 3, DirectX latest, Soundblaster XFi Elite Pro @ Media creation mode @ 44.1Khz. External Lexicon prosessor/DAC.

The umatched best SQ is given by your player the XXHighEnd.

Have registered today and I'm looking forward to using it a lot.

The user interface itself is a little buggy though. Clicking on Setting e.g. doesn't do anything.
Looking forward to more bugfree versions (but please, don't do anything to upset the SQ!!!)

Very pleased so far.

It's not buggy, there are things that are just not implemented yet.  Depending on what version you are running is what features are working.  I'm using version 0.9D.  Minor things (hehe everythings minor to SQ) such as pause, settings, moving seek bar.... aren't implemented in that version.  This player, as wonderful as it sounds, is still in development and in beta.
534  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 09, 2007, 10:22:39 am
It's 1:15 am ... so it's officially tomorrow today... chomp chomp chomping at the bit... hehe

anyhoo going to bed now, so take your time... I'm sure gerner can wait hehe
535  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 09, 2007, 12:26:48 am
Listening to Modest Mouse today, I realized how awesome my system now sounds with XXHE 0.9D... thank you again...

hey, something has to be posted on this forum about the most awesome sound quality player yet to be created.
536  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j on: September 02, 2007, 09:00:26 pm
Any hints as to what's up next?  Are you starting again with .09D and adding features to that?
537  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: One XX for all...? on: September 02, 2007, 01:41:45 am
I was somewhat wondering the same thing.  I'm sure PeterSt wants to find the one that he thinks is the right one; perhaps he can stamp his seal of approval on the version that he thinks is correct, but continue with other versions that others like.  I know I have my favorite .9D and I guess Peter endorses that one too at the moment, but everyone has an opinion/system that is different.  There's never any two highend manufacturers that sound exactly alike.  It's just if PeterSt wants to put his name to anything but what he feels is right.... kinda why I've had a hard time speaking up.  It's his piece of art and if too many cooks get in the kitchen you spoil the meal.  On the other hand, I can tell that you, like me, care a great deal about where his player is going because of how good it has made our systems compared to other players we've tried.  I know with my Sony SCD-1 (sitting and waiting for me to get off my ass to sell it), that it had 4 different "filters" for me to choose.  My friend (who also has one) liked std filter, I liked 1 and sometimes switched to 3... (coincidentally std sounded like H and 1 & 3 more like D hehe) (although he did say that he's listening to filter 1 more now).  I've wondered that if I came over to Gerner's place I might like J better there than D?  I don't really know.  It is Peter's player, I was willing to keep working with J, but on the other hand... I wasn't willing to delete D anytime soon, (I've assured that forever because it is my base player that I first activated/undemoed and the backup I always use first to change versions).

I know how you feel Gerner.  I kept thinking to myself... "well, if PeterSt does continue with these higher versions (H-J), I wonder if I could convince him to add diacritical marks/cue file support to D just for me".  We're at your mercy Peter, heh.

or, (and again, I'm not telling PeterSt what to do, just ideas if he wants to consider)
keep updating the "popular" versions as best he can with the latest version always being his official release.  Maybe adding caveats/notes to the other releases about why they were discontinued/not his official.
538  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j on: September 01, 2007, 11:54:45 pm
Well, in short, yes PeterSt; I agree with what you are hearing.  I took the time again last night and this morning to listen between .9J and .9D.  I think I really didn't want to go back and forth between the two before because I didn't want to be the one to bring this up again ( http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=159.0 ).   I think that's a disservice to you PeterSt, so I'll keep trying to be honest about what I hear.  But, always keep in mind, YOU will always have to be the one to decide what is right.  It is your player.  If you get wishywashy with everyones input, you will probably come out with a wishywashy sounding player hehe.  9J can sound very airy and "exciting" up top and in the upper mids... , but ultimately, to my ears (and with the help of my pretty cohesive bass woofers and subwoofers), I'd still have to give the nod to .9D as being more whole, organic, natural, of one piece...it sounds more real to me top/mids to bottom.  Nothing jumps out of place with .9d.  What would be better? Maybe, (maybe maybe maybe) some of that air, high frequency nrg that .9J has... but maybe that's unnatural, and .9D is doing what it should there too.  GL Peter, don't give up please.  I'm going to hold onto .9D and .9J and keep going back and forth for awhile.  It was funny last night as I banged my head trying to figure out why José González-Veener wouldn't play with .9D until I remembered about diacritical marks... heh, but that can be gotten around with a file/folder name change (cue files? unless that too changes SQ)
Remember, It's your player.  People designing audiophile gear make artistic choices all the time.  Players that play everything for everyone are becoming a dime a dozen.  I'm glad you've focused on sound quality, and if we have to limit playback features, or modify our files to play back for the best sound quality there will be those of us who care more about SQ than album art, liner notes, pretty graphics, specific file formats... Thanks again.
539  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j on: September 01, 2007, 02:55:52 am
This space reserved... hehe
I need some time to sit down and write.  I'm glad you brought this up first though PeterSt.  I've been busy and now need to pick up my daughter.  I'll come back and edit this later.  I've only spent a little time evaluating 9d vs 9j, and I have not even listened to 9j vs 9h.  9j with the Q slider is better I think than 9h ?, (I know I would have said something if it sounded the same as 9H to me), but I've really only spent a lot of time changing settings on 9j trying to make it work for me.  When I recently compared WMP and Foobar (Kernal Streaming) vs 9J, I did still find XXHE 9J to beat out both of those players... sounds like I need to go back and listen to 9d vs 9J again to reacquaint my ears... I really didn't want to be the spoiler again, but I'm glad you're using your ears.  Thanks for all the hard work Peter and I will try to put my ears into it again.
540  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Validated and known bug by Microsoft on: August 29, 2007, 07:53:02 am

Apparently the network stack suffers tremendously when playing back audio files on Windows Vista;  it appears to only be a problem if you have more than one kind of network device in your computer, i.e. wireless and LAN. Interesting. I have wireless and LAN... but both are disabled when not in use and I guess I only fire up the wireless from time to time as needed, so I haven't ran into any problems.  Just thought peps might want to know about this.
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.104 seconds with 12 queries.