Peter

Searched but can't easily find answers to 3 questions:

1. Do the latest versions of engines #1 and #2 support Cue files or have Q slider etc? 

2. Where do I pick up/download the latest version of Engine #1 or #2 from? 

3. Can I upgrade to Engine #3 for no extra charge when I eventually assemble a new PC with Vista OS, and keep #1 or #2 on my existing laptop? 

Thanks
Frank

Gerner, Thanks for your descriptions. Absolutely fascinating.

Unfortunately for me, it will be a little while before I set up a new PC with Vista and will be able to hear Peter's latest and enthralling development.

Can't wait!

Frank

Great news Peter, and big big THANKS.

I have always been a big fan of using absolute phase controls when listening to music. I had been wondering how I was going to achieve it with a computer based system after selling my Plinius pre-amp. You have solved my problem!

Any chance you could think about setting your program up to remember, or pick up a flag attached to each wav file, showing the correct absolute phase/user preference for each title - preferrably each track - as set by the listener????

Here is why I ask:

For those of you not used to the merits of having correct absolute phase/polarity, and having control flexibility, you might consider that:
* Approximately 30% of recordings are clearly recorded out of absolute phase and
* Approximately 30% of recordings are clearly recorded in absolute phase, with
* The balance of approximately 40% of recordings (usually mixed through multiple microphones where the absolute phase of microphones or equipment haven't been coordinated) are indeterminant, often with individual intstruments varying or the results varying from track to track depending on when and where they were recorded.

Once you get used to what the the differences are:
1. You will fairly easily be able to tell the correct setting for 60% of  recordings
2. For the other 40% you might well have a "preference" based on your listening senstivities. For example you might hate edgy violins or splashy cymbals or over sibilant singers so you will set absolute phase for the most smooth/pleasant high frequency result for you. Trouble is that might put other instruments in the mix out of absolute phase. It is a compromise. But you will still have a preference for half of these 40% of titles. The remainder it won't matter.

Nevertheless this is well worth doing as the difference between correct and not correct is quite noticeable on well recorded material - at least to these senstive ears. For those who want to know what to listen for, when considering "absolute phase/polarity" or "the Wood Effect" or the "muffling distortion" (not to be confused with AC polarity):

1. The sound is more dynamic in both a micro and macro sense.
2. More detail and separation of instruments and vocalists
3. Increased soundstage width and depth with vocalist often coming forward in the mix - greater separation from backing players.
4. Cleaner higher frequencies with less sibilance on voices, and edge on violins and cymbals. Somewhat like a "distortion" being removed.
5. The soundstage retains better centering of instruments and singers when the listener moves off the central listening axis. The images don't follow you so easily to the nearest speaker.
6. Fuller, more powerful, punchier, and cleaner bass.
7. A greater sense of "rightness" with a more homogenous soundstage and performance. You can more easily relax into the music knowing it sounds more real.

Many people will not be senstive to this simple and well known muffling distortion. Often people are, but blame it on their gear or the last piece inserted into their music chain, not realsing that the new unit reverses absolute phase in their system and therefore they identify the "wood effect" rather than the true merit of the unit under test. Some reviewers don't take any care in this regard at all.

I can remember many years ago doing a little test with some audio club members who brought along their very "best sounding" records. Almost without fail each individual's best sounding records all had the same absolute polarity.

There is a rider to easily recognising this "distortion" - preferrably you would have fairly phase coherent loudspeakers, which is not always possible with multiway dynamic speakers where in many cases the drivers are connected out of absolute phase with each other, and this shows on impulse/step response.

I mark all my records/CDs to show my absolute polarity preference, so being able to flag this with each wav file in XXHighEnd would be an "absolute godsend" Peter.

Cheers
Frank

Peter

Thanks for perservering with my queries. Your clarification has helped.

I will order a new PC with Vista and configure with some of the recommendations that soundcheck made.

Of course then I will bug everyone about DACs and Amps .....

Cheers
Frank

Peter

Thanks for your well thought out response. There are probably two issues for me in building a PC and using XX:

1.   Will a Music PC built for low noise, low power, low heat, low vibration, and low radiation improve overall sound quality when using XX?

2.   Will all the tweaks to reduce/cut overhead traffic and unnecessary services be worth doing with XX?

My guess/gut feeling is that the items (1.) would be good in any high end digital audio device, whereas the items in (2.) can be worked around, and are not so critical when using XX.

Some here recommend Windows 2000 with XX. You could interpret that to mean: “They already have proved that a lower noise, power, heat, and radiation environment plus low service overheads actually works!”

Windows 2000 uses only 64MB RAM and starts up only a few services, whereas XP needs 128MB and starts 33 services automatically, and Vista needs 512MB and starts 56 services automatically.

It is not surprising a non technical person like me has trouble trying to select the best PC building option.

I guess my best option is to work out the minimum processors/RAM/speed/HDD I need to run DVDs and store a music collection and go from there.

As for testing with other than heaphones. I am an old audiophile that until this exercise hasn’t worried much about digital. CDs were for the car and a portable player! I don’t have a decent CD player. And my current system is really built around TV/Movies, not music.

My music source was 2000 vinyl records and my modified Well Tempered Classic turntable (still have these). In this last year or so I sold off my expensive Plinius amps and Swan speakers (didn’t fit in the lounge of our new home – a long story) and I went for convenience. Only recently I decided to rebuild a quality all digital system.

So when you consider that, listening through good headphones and an outside USB DAC + headphone amp doesn’t seem quite so bad!

I have read your comments on standing wave and look forward to be able to test it.

Cheers
Frank

Soundcheck

Thanks for your input. I should make clear that the transport I want to build is a PC (I am just experimenting with the laptop). So all the comments I make about building a transport including the use of 2.5" SATA drive etc is in relation to a PC!

"The best sound you'll get at highest clock rate. The drawback is heat and powerconsumption.
Especially on a battery driven notebook that's not manageble.
However I found a nice compromise. I am running now 1.67GHz on a 2.16GHz Thinkpad P60."

Comment from "cics" about the E2140 duo Core compared to the 6300 > "Sound improves across the board - the level of sonic purity will shock you!" This sounds really good, but the processor has to deal with other than audio playback.


"If you really want to go for a Microsoft based system, it has been proven that Windows 2000 is soundwise a much better choice over XP. It is a known fact that latencies are much lower under Windows 2000"

I would likely go with a new Vista based system if Peter develops XX so I can configure with active XOs etc.

"Harddisk: Highly recommened are professional 500GB drives. They are ten times more reliable than the cr*ppy consumer stuff.
2* 100GB in a notebook are not recommended."

I was looking at putting 2*160GB SATA 7200 drives in the PC. With RAID it avoided the supposedly undesirable (sonically) IDE.

I guess I am trying to find out if anybody else on the forum has experimented with PC configuration that drag extra performance out of XX?

Cheers
Frank

The art of building Computer Transports creating CD transports with a view to dramatically reduce its cost whilst improve performance.
Windows XP SP 2 is recommended and efforts are made to optimize hardware, power supply, PC components, and important BIOS settings to drastically reduce or bypass electrical noise, minimize non-audio motherboard traffic & overheads, and reduce mechanical vibrations.
Optimise Power Supply, PC Hardware, Soundcard. (Every item recommended to achieve low power usage, noise, & vibration)

Case:        Something like Zalman's TNN-300 for good heat noise performance.
PSU:        Enermax Noisetaker II 485 watts with fan speed set to minimum
Motherboard:       Biostar P4M890 M7 PCI-E
CPU:        Intel Pentium Dual Core processor 1.6GHz E2140, underclocked to 1.2GHz
             (faster CPUs with higher clock speeds not recommended as more RF radiation occurs)
Memory:         1 x 1GB DDR2 533MHz
Harddisk:          2 x 2.5” Laptop SATA drives 100+GB each, 8MB+ cache, using RAID 0 (avoid IDE).
          Use 3.5" drive bay adapter.
          RAID setup can be challenging but recommended with audible improvements as IDE overheads are eliminated.

Windows XP & Soundcard Software Optimisation
Remove all unused programs
Remove most Windows software components.
Reduce video interference and traffic.
Disable many system devices
Optimise soundcard buffers and set playback buffer for lower latencies
Limit Windows services.

Last night I had the first opportunity to listen via XXHighEnd (engine #1 0.7j) and evaluate how it sounds:

1.   Compared to Foobar
2.   With computer’s Windows components and setting adjusted for low noise low power etc. operation.

I have been experimenting using my business laptop (not a very upmarket approach but it allows me to listen in bed) as preparation for investing in a computer based music server and transport. My very basic system:

Dell Inspiron 6400 notebook > Trends Audio USB (NOS) UB-10 DAC > AKG 701 headphones

Immediate Reaction:
Right away XXHighEnd was better than Foobar - as all of you already know. To a worthwhile degree, it was more clean, clear, detailed, transparent, and dynamic than Foobar. Thank you Peter!!

However I was also interested in what impact recommendations in “The art of building Computer Transports” would have (low noise, low heat, low power (Intel’s lower spec Core 2 Duo 1.6GHz E2140; dual 2.5” notebook SATA drives, etc.. with all unnecessary Windows and operating functions disabled), covered best here:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/1/19242.html

As this directly affects my proposed computer configuration and purchasing requirements, especially considering XXHighEnd recommends Vista whereas XP is recommended for the other. I also wanted to use the Computer for DVD/TV etc., which is not part of the “cics” philosophy.     So I followed many of the recommendations in his article:

After Changing Computer Component Settings:

The configuration changes changed the sound for both players for the better. XXHighEnd was marginally improved – very slightly more of everything described above. The sound through Foobar improved proportionately much more, with the final result that Foobar with the reconfigured computer was now a lot closer to the sound achieved by XXHighEnd. XXHighEnd was still better but by a smaller margin. However, I don’t know what changes to the computer settings resulted in the small improvements from XXHighEnd.

I realise on a better system the differences could be more pronounced, so I am looking for input from members on this forum.

Has anybody here experimented with building a computer transport with special components (and setup) that make a difference to sound quality, and can make recommendations on what sort of computer might get the best out of XXHighEnd?

Thanks
Frank
New Zealand