XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
September 27, 2022, 12:19:00 am *
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 ... 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
556  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Question About Process Priority on: August 15, 2007, 09:58:09 am
It's fixed!

Thanks Peter, I can now set thread (engine #3) priority to Realtime and player priority to Below Normal and it stays that way in Task Manager.

Good job. How odd that it doesn't work for you.

Why do you set the Player Priority to Below Normal?  did I miss a thread giving a reason?  I understand setting Player priority to below the setting of Thread priority..

This is something I haven't spent much time evaluating other than thinking/feeling I like setting player to normal or above normal and thread to high or realtime.  I only have XXHE setup on the FE, so the computers not taxed at all.
557  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: What have I done ... on: August 15, 2007, 12:17:41 am
I am having loads of slider fun with this player... is there a correct setting? maybe... maybe not... I think I may as well be asking, Is there an absolute correct recording?
558  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Out of the office from August 15 till August 24 on: August 14, 2007, 11:26:04 am
Have a good break.  Don't worry.... Flac isn't important, teasing teasing oops sorry had to.
Hope you have a fun time; rest up them ears.
559  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Engine#3 doesn't work on: August 14, 2007, 08:31:40 am
Ok, now it works. Thanks!

Frode
If you want to go over good settings for EAC give me a pm and I'll help you tomorrow.
560  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Version 9i and absolute phase on: August 14, 2007, 08:27:42 am
Man I am chomping at the bit to try this. (means I really want to try it!!!).  Just finally downloaded .9i and not reading much here until I give it a listen.  With people over and time with my daughter doing other things I may not get to listen to it except for background.  Plus, I knew there was a reason I didn't want home theatre in the music room ... arrggg everyone is going gaga over a new projector I picked up (took me forever to install, sigh) and I couldn't care less.  At least the screen rolls up out of the way... maybe late tonight, but for sure tomorrow I will spend time listening all evening and over the next few days it will all be about music.  Just letting you know how much I appreciate your efforts.  I read the release notes and am really excited.  I've always known that all recordings are not equal and that a recording that sounds fabulous on one system may not sound good on another... but I don't want tone controls... I may not know what I want, but I do know I want accuracy... and maybe phase controls... is that it???
561  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Version 9i and absolute phase on: August 13, 2007, 10:47:06 am
Nice thoughts.  I sure wish I could listen and play tonight with the new 9i, but it's 1:30 and I'm burnt.  I know what you mean about phase messing things up and how even on a few albums each song can be a different phase... sigh, as long as the code/tags for what you're asking don't mess up the sound hehe... sometimes I think I breathe wrong on a cable and the sound changes heh.  Some things defy logic... or just aren't figured out yet.  But I sure am looking forward to this player with phase control.. manual or otherwise.
562  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / ver .9D vs .9H on: August 11, 2007, 02:59:12 am
Last weekend (Aug 3rd) I finally loaded up version H to give it a listen compared to D.  I've spent all my listening time since then going back and forth between the two players; ABCing the songs with the help of my daughter.  In the middle of last week I emailed Peter and hinted that I definitely heard differences and was forming opinions.  Before I let those opinions be known, I urged him to listen again to version D before I lay out what I'm hearing.  I finally got the nerve to email Peter again last night and put those opinions out to him and ask his permission to post.  I urge all of you to please, load up Version D and play it against Version H before reading further.


Ok,,, you've put an evening into comparing D vs H, right?

This is basically what I wrote Peter, with a few addenda.
Hi Peter,
I've been listening to both now since my last message to you.  I've been agonizing over how to approach you on it and going back and listening again and again.  I've had so many conversations in my head with you as I've been listening.... I'm kinda burnt out.   But I keep coming to the same conclusions; I prefer ver. D over H.  I know H can sound "clearer".  It can come forward and wrap around you.  But to me, it sounds like it's being striped down and lost some of that wonderful body that D has.  Low low subwoofer bass is not hitting me with the full bloom and energy I experience with D.  Like phase got out of whack. Upper bass is less tuneful and lacking body compared to D.   Drums, low kick and high, don't have the weight, body, impact that I hear with D.  With H the drums are more papery sounding.
With H images are more pinpoint... but to me that's not always a good thing; H has lost the wholeness and organics that D has.  The pinpoint imaging is more about losing the bloom/decay around the instruments rather than about accurate soundstage.  Mids are less vibrant and less real sounding to me.  Sometimes the upper mids jump out (not much) but don't stay in place like with D.  I don't want to say upper mids are more strident or nasal sounding... that's harsh, but, they are more so than with D.  I think that all comes from a feeling that the music/air is striped off, lost energy.  The air in the room is less vibrant with H than with D.  When things get stripped down it can lead you to think you're hearing more of something else (other/prominent parts for the music stand out),.. but remember, listen again to D, and look for what you're missing.  D is more relaxed and its' soundstage more laid back.  At first blush someone might think that H is louder, more exciting... but, because I know about D, H just makes me a little more edgy... not wanting to sit as long, not being pulled into the music as much.  When listening to vocals and instruments I feel like D holds the notes/voice longer than H (that was also a comment my daughter made to me, not knowing which player, just blind comparing).  Compared to D, vocals with player H are clipped; instruments breath is cut short.

I could go on and on about each type of music/instruments I listened to, but for each one I would say that D just sounds more natural, more robust, more vibrant, more whole, everything in the soundstage where it should be...  H, more clinical, more upfront, piano too clangy, less decay, holes in the soundstage instead of instruments commingling.  I know some might say H is like looking through a cleaner window... but that's not really how I perceive it.  H sounds tilted up in pitch almost... but I think it's that perception of missing some natural, correct, warmth in D.  To me H sounds like a new component needing break in time... heh, doubt that's going to happen with software; hope springs eternal.

Of course this is all written with a bit of hyperbole; most people wouldn't hear these differences on first blush, although without my prompting my daughter began to describe things pretty well; (she was blind through-out and listened to songs 3 times; both of us could pick the two players that were the same in an ABC, no this is not fun :/ hehe).  She didn't always pick D as the best sounding, but she's young, 11, and most of the time she would prefer D and be able to tell me why.  I remember she liked the finger snaps better in one song on H and liked how it would come forward and surround her... couple moments like that.  But don't get me wrong, she nearly always preferred D, as did I, when comparing (I think I was very careful not to give her clues).  I grew up listening to live music; my father supported us as a musician; plays the trombone.  I know when the stereo is moving toward a more real sound and when it is moving toward a more hifi sound... and I prefer D.  I'd post this in the forum to get others reactions, but I wanted you to hear it from me first.  I remember I didn't listen long to g (and didn't need f) and just dismissed g because I didn't need gapless... but it seems to me my body was saying go back to D after hearing g... i dunno.  But I did spend time listening to both D and H, (from bagpipes to Beethoven quartet; from deep bass electronic rock to Monk piano/other jazz)... so I urge you to go all the way back to D and listen again to it against H.

If you pick my brain and ask me questions, I know I can add to this. I'll go back and forth a few more evening too, not my favorite thing to do.   I'd rather just kick it and listen, but I do have strong feelings about your player.  Let me know if you want me to post any of this, I'll look at it tomorrow too and see if I can't make myself be understood better.  Thanks, Dave Robinson
563  Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: Optical USB cable for usb-dac on: August 10, 2007, 10:27:21 am
Theories are good I think. There may be (or will be ?) jitter implications though. It's really something to test out ...

It's going to be a bit of an expensive test I'm afraid.  Some over at Audio Asylum say it has worked well for them.  But ya I'm afraid of adding jitter, so if it doesn't sound as good as my 1 m of regular cable, I'll go back.
564  Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Optical USB cable for usb-dac on: August 09, 2007, 08:29:04 pm
I am probably going to buy this:
http://industrialcomponent.com/opticis/opm210010.html
It is an optical usb cable.  I will also need a short usb A to B cable on the downstream side (going into dac), and will probably get this:
http://industrialcomponent.com/newnex/uh2abr0106.html
It is powered on the downstream side with a wall wart (no copper in it so it doesn't use the 5 v usb)... optionally I can buy this battery power supply:
http://www.amazon.com/Socket-Communications-AC4009-541-Li-Ion-Mobile/dp/B000309YMM
There are probably cheaper battery supplies I need to look into... how about this one:
http://www.bixnet.com/5v7libapa.html

Anyway... what do you think?  This would move the computer/HardDrives closer to me to control and Isolate the dac/stereo from whatever computer interference.
565  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: No cache !! on: August 04, 2007, 10:24:06 am
Wait.  I don't understand.  If EAC, (using detect read features) says Yes to my drive caches, then I need to checkmark "Drive caches audio data" in Drive Options > Extraction Methods tab... right???

From EAC help:
"If your drive caches the audio just read, it would be a problem to read this data again in order to compare both extractions to find out if they match.  In that case this option has to be enabled, so that EAC will clear the cache by overreading it.  If your drive support this feature could be tested using the fuction at the bottom".

That would be correct.
What got into the author of presenting logic like this, I don't know. It feels kind of upside down and unrelated.
I have that box checked as, indeed, per the selfdetections of the program.

The more I think of this, the more I realize that it doesn't say anything ...

Djeezz, I know the cache should not be used, but how is that setting then ??  aggressive

I now, and only just now see this checkbox under the Paranoid Mode radio button. You know, this button we never choose because it's "not recommended".
But let's be fair, when you see *this*, what would be the conclusion ? ...


Have you tested Secure vs Paranoid mode as to which is the better setting (less errors?)  .... you're not making me feel very good tonight hehe as I look into a future of reripping my discs... yet again :/ hehelol  (dangit, and I started selling some of my lesser liked discs off hehe) Paranoid mode always sounded like me, I just didn't use it cause they don't recommend it... but IT's paranoid mode... it has to be better hehe [sigh] better not sell off any more discs untill you finish your ripper/checker i guesses
566  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: No cache !! on: August 04, 2007, 09:17:55 am
Doesn't EAC warn against unchecking this if your drive supports cache;

Of course ...

OF COURSE THE CACHE MUST BE OFF hence not active.

Gerner, your speeding was related to calibrating the drive, so it would know the beginning of a track instead of having to search for it. That may differ 10 seconds per track. Remember ?



Wait.  I don't understand.  If EAC, (using detect read features) says Yes to my drive caches, then I need to checkmark "Drive caches audio data" in Drive Options > Extraction Methods tab... right???

From EAC help:
"If your drive caches the audio just read, it would be a problem to read this data again in order to compare both extractions to find out if they match.  In that case this option has to be enabled, so that EAC will clear the cache by overreading it.  If your drive support this feature could be tested using the fuction at the bottom".
567  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: Questions on EAC on: August 04, 2007, 05:22:28 am
Doesn't EAC warn against unchecking this if your drive supports cache; EAC needs to know to work around it and check your data being ripped me thinks.
I get some 99.9 rips, but 98.8 might be worrisome... try cleaning the disc?  Also, drives go bad fast it seems.  My (expensive :/ ) plextor 760A drive only lasted a year... but many many movies and even more cds (~+1500) were ripped on it in that time.  I just picked up a pioneer dvr-2810 sata dvd/cd writer... seems to work well.  I slow it down to 8X when ripping or it would rip faster... which I don't trust (vibrating discs and such whirring at high speeds.. idk)
568  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / OMG emo blog warning on: August 03, 2007, 09:14:41 am
ima going to cry :/... but I think? it's a happy story in the end... i've redone my Folk collection ~ 100 gigs, about 3 times now. :/  don't read this ... it will make your head bleed

First off... you all know I've been working on splitting my single wav plus cue files into individual song wav files.  No matter what, at this point, I'm keeping these single album wav files plus cue files as backup.  I think it's the safest way to have the orginal cd info on file (gap settings, title info...) But,
I've been going through hell trying to create multi song files PLUS a cue file for them too, (if I was just trying to get the song wav files it would be no problem).
First off I tried using cue splitter from EAC or creating cue files with Use Current Gap settings... but this most of the time doesn't work and gives a cue file that doubles songs, leaves songs off,  or ...it's just messed up... spent way to much time editing the cues and gave up thinking had to be a better way.  Also tried using daemon tools, my single wav/cue, but it gave the same problem... course I didn't notice until I was most of the way through ripping...So, I tried using EAC "Multiple wavs with corrected gaps" yea, I thought, the cue file looks right and on first play, it played... let her rip... get done and start playing songs... omfg, it cuts off the first few seconds of the song... on the wav itself :/ crymeariver..Been going at this off and on for 3 days now wtf

Was going to give up on the cue files for the multi wavs... but found this program called Medieval Cue-Splitter http://www.medieval.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=70
and now that I know what problem areas to look for, (spent the latter part of this day checking it out), I think it works.  Will take about 1 min to do split if I don't change any info... but the good part is, if I want to change info I can do that pretty easy.  Now that I'm pretty sure what I want for info, I'm ready to tackle the splits again.  My cue files will be named automatically, %A(lbum artist name) - %y(ear) - %T(album title) - %g(enre) Pulls that from previous cue info or i add in.  My wav files will be: for single artist; %A(lbum artist name) %y(ear) %T(album title) %n(song number order) %t(rack title); for various artist albums it's; %n(song number order) %A(lbum artist name) [which comes out Various] %y(ear) %T(album title) %a(rtist name doing the song) %t(rack title)

K, I'm off to shower, then spend the night doing this if I can manage to stay awake.... I want to listen to version H dagnabit... but i get so single minded wanna finish... well, it's in the background now in another room.  12 am here in california wish me luck
569  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: Most convenient Storage Structure ? on: August 01, 2007, 07:17:00 pm
Hahaha, I just tried it. It does work, but not how we'd want it.

a. XX will start from the location where the WAV sits, implying that it can't find the necessary files, and therewith thinking it's a demo version;
b. When you select several tracks, Rightclick - Open, XX starts as many times as tracks were selected.


Again... if you do figure out how to associate tracks with XXHE, how will it know which Version of XXHe I want to listen to?  Until out of beta and we are all sure which version to use... keep it simple like you have it now.
570  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: Most convenient Storage Structure ? on: August 01, 2007, 07:13:10 pm
Hi Soundcheck,

You were  talking about how to define XX as default audio player for .wav in the registry. Can you explain how to do that?

I think currently this is not possible, because XXHighEnd doesn't (on purpose) come with an official install. So Windows wouldn't know about it.
But indeed (I think) I could change the Registry for that ...



I really really like that you haven't done an "official install".  Right now I have two versions of XXHE on my machine and will have a third version, h, on the computer soon.  If you did an official install wouldn't windows only allow one version to be run (overwriting the previous version); maybe not but... ?  By just unzipping XXHE and creating a shortcut to XXHighEnd.exe from each of its own version folder (I have shortcuts named DXXHE, FXXHE and will have HXXHE so I can listen for differences...).  I can then go and just delete a folder of a version I no longer care for and don't have to worry that the uninstall of Windows didn't get everything... registry messing?   

delete/move this post if you'd like after reading PeterSt
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.117 seconds with 12 queries.