XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
April 28, 2024, 03:48:37 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
91  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 21, 2010, 08:56:22 pm
Guys "next post" is hopefully coming quickly but in meantime:

>>>More importantly, I suspected that ADC also did some limited/poor quality dithering or no dithering at all i.e. it just chopped last 8 of 24 bits.

>This is not the case. The Model Two provides a number of 16-bit dither options, which I understand are pretty sophisticated.

Yes - I found the Instruction Manual (that's why you need to wait for "next post" Happy ) and I stand corrected: there are no less than 7 different dithering algorithms, lol Happy

Here however, we have a small problem: you mentioned that you did NOT use any HDCD processing but looking at manual under dither it is called "HDCD 16-bit Dithers"? It also says that DITHER1 algorithm is default. Is this just marketing again (i.e. dithering has nothing with HDCD encoding) or does this imply that _some_ HDCD internal processing is still being done if dithering is used?

Because if it is then we are running in circles - of course we cannot HDCD encode via software (at least I can't)...




92  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 21, 2010, 06:56:33 pm
>A few minutes ago I already typed "but the quantization noise should be audible ?" ... and then I thought to listen for it. Josef, your both versions are full of it. Mani's has NONE.

Yes, of course Happy
Both 'my' versions were downsampled from 176 to 44 - AFAIK By definition, downsampling will create quantization noise, won't it? The question is not whether it is there (it has to be) but does it negatively affect the sound?

Now, if you say Mani's version has no quantization noise that would also make sense if ADC did _not_ dynamically downsample 176 to 44 but, rather, as suspected, just kept every 4th sample - right?

>You can hear it right in the beginning, when the needle is still in the lead-in.

Lead-in lasts maybe 2 secs on Mani's 16/44 but only maybe 0.5 sec on 'my' version - Sorry, but I could not hear any weird noises in 0.5 secs, it's just too short a time before drum starts hitting - Or did you mean something else?

(see also next post)
93  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 21, 2010, 01:06:18 pm
>So please, let us in on it - what did you change? I'm intrigued...

OK, here it comes but please be forewarned: you may not like what you'll hear so no shooting the messenger, OK? Happy

Idea was this: I suspected that 'dynamic decimation' _was_ indeed a marketing term to just keep 1 out of 4 samples or some very, very simple (=poor quality) downsampling.
More importantly, I suspected that ADC also did some limited/poor quality dithering or no dithering at all i.e. it just chopped last 8 of 24 bits.

So if this theory was correct, by taking your master and doing the same thing to it we should be getting close to the sound of your native 16/44 version!

Now, I don't have software that can do _exactly_ that - perhaps somebody else does - but I was convinced if I just did something _similar_ we should be getting closer to your native 16/44 sound.
  
So, for step 1. what I did is to take the worst resampler I had at hand: Foobar's PPHS. PPHS still does much more than simply dropping 3/4 samples but is clearly inferior in quality to professional algorithm used for previous version. This is important as downsampling creates all kinds of side-effects and lower-quality algorithms create more of that (think it's called aliasing or quantization noise or somesuch Happy.  BTW - I could not get as close to your native 16/44 sound by using high-quality resampler!

Then, I simply skipped steps 2. & 3. from first version (Noise Shaping & Dithering) and just 'cut' the bits to first 16. Note that this will add _even more_ quantization noise to result!

While this step also is not exactly the same as taking 24 bits and discarding last 8 it is close enough: strictly technically speaking when PPHS dowsampled from 176 to 44.1 it created 64-bit floats and then those 64-bit floats were just cut by Foobar to 16-bit integer in the simplest manner = without any processing.

So what does all this mean? Here's one explanation I believe is at least close to truth:

Initially, I agreed with your assesment of 'native 16/44': it  _seemed_ to have more 'buggy factor' or 'life' as you put it. But when I compared it with my manually downsampled version (note that some amazing software was used as I explained in email!) I suddenly found it too 'rough'.
Then I remembered where I heard that pattern before: as mentioned in my post, some time ago when I was processing files for Ipod (=applying Replay Gain when converting to WAVs), I turned off Noise Shaping & Dithering to experiment (you can try the same!)
And the track I used also had a leading piano Happy And it also initially sounded like it had 'more life' and I thought I heard the piano screeching & making all kinds of funny noises which I thought uncovered more detail & realism that previously was masked! So I converted bunch of music this way!
Long story short, after some time (and it wasn't minutes, it was probably days - I'm getting old, lol:)) I realized that I was getting fatigued after relatively short listening sessions - just like you found out in your latest post!

So, there wasn't more 'realism' or more 'life' there - it was just more quantization noise that fooled me back then and, if I may respectfully suspect, you too this time:)

Cheers,
Josef
94  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 20, 2010, 09:43:42 pm
WOW! Great analysis Peter. Thanks.

But all sure tells me that Mani's 44.1 MUST sound different.

I agree with this 100%. What I call the native-16/44.1 sounds the most different from the vinyl. And the native-24/176.4 sounds the most similar to the vinyl (actually identical, as far as I can tell on my system). Josef's 16/44.1 definitely sounds more similar to the vinyl than my 16/44.1.

Mani.

Try this:
http://www.filemail.com/confirmation.aspx?id=HAHCNWRYCNBXSTE

I am curious if you find this version more similar to your 'native 16/44'. (it is also derived from your 24/176 master but in a different way)

If you do find it 'more similar' then we might have some interesting food for thought Happy


95  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 18, 2010, 05:54:08 pm
Wow we created some controversy here, great fun Happy

Like Peter, I am a bit skeptical about how ADC is treating 16/44 - if I wanted to be really, really nasty (no hard feelings please:) I might surmise that 'dynamic decimation' is a marketing term for 'just chop 3 out of 4 samples' Happy

But seriously: Version I posted (let's call it 'DND' - see below) is simply a more realistic scenario because software is more likely to be better at what it does (because it's easier to experiment & update) and also likely to _do more_ than hardware - Specifically, version I posted has been processed minimally (& maximally at same time Happy) like this:

1. Downsampling from 176 to 44: There are many complex algorithms here i.e. this is much more complicated than simply keeping every 4th sample (not saying your ADC does that - just illustrating the point of complexity and likelihood that sw will beat hw every time)
2. Noise Shaping - this is theoretically not needed but in my experience I found it to be essential when 'downsizing' to 44/16. Again, there is a multitude of algorithms to choose from...
3. Dithering - i.e. cutting 24 to 16 bits. This one was to me always more impressive (even magical!) than first 2 as, in theory, it affects only the last 16th bit (hey, how important can it be whether it's 0 or 1??)  and yet dithering method can impact a definitive sound signature - And of course, there are a zillion algorithms to choose...

Point being - to get _good_ 16/44 you need to choose from many, many different algorithms which is easy (although time-consuming) to do with software but often impossible to do with hardware alone, and results are bound to be waaay betetr with software approach.

Anyway - who cares about all this technical mumbo jumbo stuff - let's discuss how this sounds to us!

24/176 does not work on my hw but I am fairly certain that 16-bit 'DND' version is superior to 'raw' 16/44.

It is hard to put it in words but while listening I remembered an occasion when I was experimenting with manipulating WAVs I was loading to my iPod. I was using Foobar and turned off both Noise Shaping & Dithering controls (no changes were being made to music apart from ReplayGain).

Initially, I was surprised how much more immediate everything sounded - vocals were 'in my head' and music was very much 'in your face'. After listening for longer time however, I realized that effect of no NS & D was, in a way, similar to comparing 'flat' & 'heavily compressed' track. Compressed track always sounds 'better' because there is 'more there' until one gets a headache and starts seeing square waves in sleep Happy

'Raw' 16/44 sounds eerily similar: It's like a rough diamond - all information, bits (pun intended Happy & pieces, atoms & molecules, are there but it's not cut yet and certainly not polished - I assume 24/176 will sound similar: more flow, more ease, more polish - simply more 'music' as opposed to 'sounds'.

But maybe I'm mistaken: would people with capable hardware care to share their thoughts of both 'native' 24/176, 'raw' & 'DND' 16-bit and, especially interesting for us fans of XX, AP upsampled 16-bits?

PS.
>Which program did you use for the downsampling/decimation?

Mani, I'm not sure it's OK to talk about other software on this forum so I'll send you an email!
96  Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 on: August 18, 2010, 01:37:51 am
If I understand correctly, 16/44 version was really recorded like that?

If so, IMHO this is not a fair comparison: it would be much more interesting if 16/44 was derived from 'master' 24/176. To save you the trouble I did just that - get it here:
http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=ADMNTWIBWBZXRRS

As I don't have hardware that can play 24/176 I'd like all to please compare and share your thoughts again!


97  Ultimate Audio Playback / Music Storage and convenient playback / Re: The Thruth About "Audiophile" Recordings on: April 24, 2010, 02:04:47 am
>STICK WITH THE FIRST RELEASES, discard all MFSL...

While you definitely have something there I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Oh, I too experimented with 'color' CDs many years ago - heck, I still may have a couple unopened shrink-wrapped Kodak Ultima 100% Gold CD-R discs somewhere in basement, lol Happy Unlike you, though, I actually preferred black CDs to gold ones - Curiously, not all blacks were good - only from certain manufacturers. Those that were good however, sounded way superior not only in some high-end CD player but the difference was very obvious even in a car!

I am sure you can give many examples (and please, do give examples – it’s time somebody exposes those cheaters!) were ‘remaster’ or ‘gold’ version only managed to completely botch/destroy the original master. Yeah, I’ve seen those too and totally agree: it’s a shame and complete fraud... I don’t know why this happens: is it really only because of insatiable greed of major record companies (which, although despicable, _is_ completely understandable), or to satisfy market _needs_ (=if your song does not sound LOUD on radio the kids won’t buy it & you’ll lose sales – again, sad turn of events but it also makes sense and you really have no option but to play the game), or, much, much more worryingly, could it be that the art of mastering completely died some 10-20 years ago because of that ‘greed & market need’?

I hope not.
And let me explain my case before the jury with two exhibits where ‘gold’/’remaster’ was IMHO much better sounding than CD ‘first release’:

Exhibit A: ABC “Lexicon Of Love”: 25th  Anniversary Edition (remaster):

An amazing record. I think I was a teenager when it came out – there simply was nothing like it in pop music before or after....
CD still was not invented at that time so we listened to records or, more likely, to own-recorded tapes from vinyl (btw, it sounded gorgeous on Maxell XL-S & Sony Walkman: those were the days....)
When it came out on CD (uh, 20 years ago?) I bought it immediately (one of first CDs I bought).
It sounded like cr*p.
I mean, it was sooooo bad, I believe even my ‘limited-frequency-range’ Maxell XL-S Dolby C tape recording from original vinyl on a boombox sounded better!

Fast forward 25 years: By chance, I run into ‘25th Anniversary Edition’ CD on Amazon. I’m sceptical.... Damn bastards only made couple good songs since then and want to sucker me for my money.... I hate paying for same thing twice and this would even make it thrice! (incl vinyl)...... But reviews on Amazon are enthusiastic and don’t sound like nostalgic drivel.....some even praise the sound quality of ‘remaster’..... hmmmmm, let’s order it wtf...

Long story short: 25th Anniversary remaster _blew away_ my ‘original’ CD pressing!

Exhibit B: Pink Floyd - The Wall

Everybody knows this album – an absolute masterpiece - ‘nuff said.
I bought double CD almost 20 years ago – I wouldn’t know how to check but I guess it’d qualify as ‘first’ release.
It sounds ok-ish. Much better than ABC cd.
But the problem was, I also bought original vinyl some, uhmmm, 30? years ago (boy, does time fly)....
Mind you, back then I was a kid and didn’t have money for a great record player... or a great amp...or speakers.....In fact, I had no money at all and record player & speakers were rather cr*ppy...
But, despite all this, the CD version somehow never sounded ‘right’ – that is, I seemed to have in my memory a certain sound: and it simply was not there when listening to CD for, well, almost 20 years.... In that time, of course, I was able to improve on ‘hardware’ part quite a lot but whatever I did (transistor->tubes, speakers, cables, whatever) while I always did get better sound the emotion that got burned somewhere in my mind from vinyl days never really came to life....

Then, completely by chance, I got an opportunity to listen to original Sony Japan vinyl pressing from 1979 (!) converted to CD format by an unknown obsessive audiophile (where would we be without this incredible thing called Internet?)..... Wow! This thing totally _blew away_ my ‘first release’ CD by wiiiide margin.....

Now, I’ve stopped listening to vinyl ~20+ years ago and was getting tired of all those vinyl junkies screaming how superior vinyl was to CD (especially since we have this great XXHighEnd player!), and yet, here it was: original vinyl, even converted to digital format, just killed my CD version..... But wait a minute, it still was _digital_...What’s going on here?

Intrigued, I learned there was a ‘gold remastered’ CD MFSL release of ‘The Wall’ (mind you, I’ve never even heard of MFSL company before this occasion) and decided to try that too...(hey, you only live once and it seems I’ve logged some years.....)
To cut a long story short, after a loooong, back & forward session between ‘audiophile digitized’ 1979 Vinyl & MFSL ‘gold remaster’ CD, as much as in the back of my mind I may have been rooting for vinyl (the memories & emotions from listening to original vinyl 30 years ago suddenly came to life), in the end I had to admit that MFSL had pretty much everything that digitized vinyl version had but it did not have any vinyl drawbacks (pops, clicks, arm-needle issues, you know, usual suspects...)

Now I _really_ wanted to know what is going on here: are all my CDs ‘obsolete’ and how can it be that some guy with record player (although admittedly obsessive audiophile with some probably very expensive equipment) is able to digitize original vinyl and totally destroy my ‘first release’ CD version?

So, I went on to read what this audiophile did to convert his analog ‘master’ to digital CD format and learned a lot about how extremely tricky it is to make a good analog to digital  conversion and how many of digital algorithms have only been perfected many _years_ after CD format was unveiled (....and digital was proclaimed to be ‘perfect sound forever’ by Sony/Phillips marketing machine....)

One of those algorithms was called ‘Dithering’: what it does sounds deceptively simple and unimportant: because analog master, in a manner of speaking, has ‘infinite’ resolution and CD is fixed to 16-bits, this ‘infinite’ has to be ‘rounded’ into these 16 bits somehow and ‘dithering’ algorithm decides whether this last bit is 0 or 1 - that’s it..... To my astonishment, there appeared to be dozens of ways to do, this seemingly unimportant, ‘rounding’ – and even worse, they all produced a slightly different sound signature....?
And, to make matters a bit more complicated, it turns out that before this ‘rounding’ (=dithering) happens, pretty much all mastering engineers nowadays ‘noise shape’ analog signal by, literally, _adding noise_ to original signal because it makes dithering works even better and resulting digital signal ends up sounding more ‘analog/vinyl’...?
Strange, very strange, but true. I could not resist and tried playing with demo version of tools used by this audiophile to create ‘his’ digital version of vinyl recordings. And all those ‘algorithms’ did, indeed, change the sound and made it nicer sounding....

So, as I said, I have to disagree with statement that all ‘gold, remasters, etc’ are bad because:
a)   I do find some cases where I hear otherwise
b)   It simply makes sense that analog to digital conversion technology improved (it’s been more than quarter of a century since CD came about and story about dithering & noise shaping algorithm development is a testament to this development)

But, again, you are 100% right that there are bad, bad, bad, ‘remasters’ out there – However, it would seem it’s not because of a lack of knowledge & tools, but simply because of ‘greed & market need’ – So, by all means, let’s expose them here....

BTW: you mentioned you’d  expand on ‘high-resolution’ recordings: Don’t have much experience with those (am limited to 16/44, well, apart from SuperAudioCD that’s gathering dust) but would very much like to hear what you experienced!

Cheers,
Josef
98  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: M-Audio Transit won't play (WASAPI/KS) on: February 17, 2010, 03:44:38 pm
Hi Peter,

>But did you indeed denote your DAC as 16/44.1 in the Settings Area?

Yes.

Not sure if this helps you but AFAIK keep in mind that Off-ramp comes in different varieties: I have the initial v1 ('old') version which was based on Transit chip (same as in M-Audio Transit USB converter, although sound is drastically better with Off-ramp (I have both so could compare:) ).

Newer Off ramp (v3 definitely, v2 not sure) is based on a different chip which does not need/use M-Audio drivers. Maybe '24-bit' issue only applies to that version?

Cheers,
Josef
99  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: M-Audio Transit won't play (WASAPI/KS) on: February 16, 2010, 09:27:18 pm
Hi Marcin,

I also have Offramp and KS works great!

Not sure if this helps you, but I have Transit set to 16/44 _both_ in M-Audio panel _and_ in Control Panel. For some reason Control Panel always resets the card to 24/44 after reboot or plugging the USB cable in/out and I have to manually switch it to 16/44 otherwise some software (eg Media Player Home Cinema for movies) does not produce sound at all. 

I see you are trying to play 24/96 wav - I never tried that as my DAC is 16/44 only (Audio Note) so I can't help you there but 16/44 definitely works in both WASAPI & KS...

Cheers,
Josef
100  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: 9y--504 on: February 08, 2010, 11:21:53 pm
I know it sounds trite, but I've never heard a digital source sound so analogue.

Was waiting until USB was supported for KS and had to try it especially after seeing this comment Happy

So, just did a quick listen and indeed: KS does sound very different from WASAPI.
 
In fact, differences are far from subtle: it's like KS seems to bring more light and seems to create illusion of more space by bringing music forward, closer to listener.
In contrast, WASAPI appears further out, darker...

Taken all together, WASAPI seems somehow detached, almost mechanically (maniacally?) precise where in contrast KS shines a warm, transparent, glow and seems a bit more personal, intimate or, simply, softer ....
Difference is especially pronounced in higher frequencies, cymbals, high-hats or anything that makes sweeshy swooshy sounds - at least to me, KS makes them sound more 'sweet'...

Overall, difference between KS & WASAPI is not as big as, say, moving from foobar WASAPI to XX WASAPI which, in itself, is a huuuge structural leap, but is more like a change of character, a different personality: it's almost like Engine#4 is Engine #3's alter ego Happy

Very, very interesting - it seems the choice between KS or WASAPI will depend on deep personal preferences or maybe even moods...

BTW Seems 504 still has some issues (after track has played in stealth mode I have to bring up GUI with Alt-X otherwise I get a bunch of 'No Track Given' or 'No permission to access <library folder>' messages, but nevermind, KS makes it worth a little trouble Happy )

Cheers,
Josef
101  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: BIG problems with Windows 7 on: August 09, 2009, 12:48:51 am
Oh my God... Happy
Right, I totally forgot there was one more thing to check out.... LOL!

I guess this makes it a good case to put that check box also in Settings, right next to Services?
Also, how about renaming 'Unattended' (breaks my tongue every time) to something more friendly, like 'Stealth mode', 'Auto-Pilot' etc?

Thanks once again for your help - I can confirm that XX works well with Win7 final!

Cheers,
Josef
102  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: BIG problems with Windows 7 on: August 08, 2009, 08:45:17 pm
Hi Peter,

> The services seem a kind of logic to me, and things (or names) could have changed in W7.

Yeah - I did some more testing and believe that is it - services names must have changed (otherwise I'd really be confused).

Anyway, this is what I did:

- I logged in as local machine admin (normally I use office domain but that never caused a problem before - however, just to be sure now 'normal'  local domain is used). I also verified that UAC is still at 'never notify' i.e. OFF
- I downloaded XX fresh and put it in new folder
- I start it up (in Demo mode with default settings) and everything works OK (notice that Windows asks for each of utilities (flac, ChangeWP etc) 'am I sure it's ok to start blabla...' It also asks for Engine3 but clicking OK makes everything work OK ie music plays as expected - I played 1 WAV file that does not need to be copied to source disk nor requires any conversion etc - again, it plays OK
- Then I check 'Stop services': it has absolutely no effect: XX is always visible (does not disappear) and wallpaper is not changed to show cover art

So, everything is normal (including drag/drop) apart from XX always being in 'attended mode' - so it's possible that simply service names are different in Win7 - I can check the names if you have the list?

(BTW Attached is log file from this short session which again has that 'attended playback initiated' message in it - maybe you can see something odd in there - to me it looks perfectly normal)

Cheers,
Josef
103  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: BIG problems with Windows 7 on: August 08, 2009, 01:48:34 pm
Hi Peter - Got your PM with new activation code and it worked OK - tnx!

Unfortunately 'unattended' mode still does not work. Even though 'services' is checked, log file says 'starting attended playback' unhappy

Not sure if this helps you figure out what is going on but I noticed something else very strange: drag & drop onto XX playlist window did not work! Turned out this is related to UAC & 'Run as Administrator':

- If UAC is left on default (which in Win7 is far less annoying then in Vista) and XX is NOT 'run as admin' then XX will give several error messages and warnings that things might fail - in fact, it works just fine (at least for couple minutes that I was testing it) and drag & drop works too.
- However, if XX IS 'run as admin' errors/warnings disappear but drag & drop does NOT work. (I think I also got Engine3 to crash consistently)

Anyway, the solution seems to be to disable UAC by moving the UAC slider all the way down to 'Never notify'. After that there seems to be no difference between starting XX 'as admin' or not, drag & drop works ok and engine3 is working well too.

In all cases though, auto-pilot (=unattended) playback will not work (as well as OSD time display but that seems a logical consequence).

Is auto-pilot mode working for you in Win7? Anybody else?

Josef
104  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / BIG problems with Windows 7 on: August 07, 2009, 10:35:42 pm
Hi Peter,

Just installed Win7 final retail and everything seems to work very good except XX unhappy

I did a clean install of Win and also downloaded XX again but get an error message when I try to activate it (see ErrrorReg.jpg) - Any ideas?

Also, maybe it is because I run in demo mode, but 'shutdown services' thing is behaving weird: seems services are not stopped at all - the wallpaper does get changed but I can still click on XX on taskbar and stop it without having to use AutoHK.
What is really strange is that I noticed this same behavior on Vista last couple days before I moved to 7 - any ideas how to get 'unattended' mode running again?

One more thing - if I do NOT start XX as Administrator XX complains that sound quality will be negatively affected which is nice - I do not remember getting that warning on Vista - However, if I just click through it will crash: see (NoAdminCrash.jpg).

(Just fyi: I have also tried setting 'Vista' in Compatibility properties but it does not change anything)

Anyway, hoping the new version can fix this - or perhaps you can supply a hotfix?

Cheers,
Josef
 
105  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ? on: June 09, 2009, 01:54:10 pm
>I'm hoping that MY amplifiers will be fast enought to follow it... (the tube folks wont be happy)

Are you saying that 'tube folks' should not even try this DAC?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
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 0.161 seconds with 12 queries.