Hi Peter,

Your answer made me think of something I had stupidly overlooked. It now works.

Thanks,

Michael

Hey Peter,

I had guessed that you might have been looking at the possible reasons for the SQ differences. 60k lines of C that is some program.  It's a facinating explanation of what could be happening, thank you.

So I think you are saying that buffer size is the simple product of q1 an xq1, but q1 is also used elsewhere in the engine by itself to influance timing. Now you have explained this it may make sense in terms of what I hear. The SQ difference I get when selecting a lower q1 value (of course whilst ensuring the q1, xq1 product remains the same) is similar in character to changing the timer resolution setting.

It's good to know my hearing is not changing slightly each time q1 and xq1 "pairs" are changed 


I am really looking forwards to this, I cannot wait.....

Kr,

Nick.

Hi Michael,

It is not supposed to work the way you "want".
Dedicate Drive Letters to sources you want in Normal OS and use them later in MinOS. You can't access random data in MinOS Mode because it would defeat the purpose of "being lean".

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I need some help regarding the LAN services in MinOS mode.

I want to access music files on a Laptop which is on my network. In regular OS it works just fine. However in MinOS I can see that the Windows Explorer shows that the Network Discovery feature is turned off. If I turn it on it gets immediately turned off. If I simply go back to regular OS the Laptop gets discovered again.

In the XXHE Services the 'Keep LAN Services' and 'Persist' are turned on.

Would you have a clue?

Thanks,

Michael_B

Hi there Nick,

Possibly you thought I was ignorantly silent, but this is not so. Instead I thought to need really a few spare hours to investigate this in the program, which I just now attempted ...

First off, I right away tried to hear what you hear, but it is too much apples and oranges for me because I'd need to change the "product of the factor" to be higher, which I already don't want; I see that others easily skip this phenomenon, or even skip your subject and find the higher product / resulting number better, but I can't go for that (still working on the 12/24 for me new processor and its best sound ever by now, for me).
And exchanging my 30x5 for 5x30 does not seem to do much.
One (very) funny thing : I was just looking up the numbers (like 30x5) to be very sure and see that I left it at 5x30. Is that fun or is it not ...

Investigating the real impact is too difficult. Already the Q1 is used throughout in the program which, mind you, is all about WASAPI and how "Engine3" ever started its life as that (WASAPI playback). So if Q1 occurs 1000 times in the program, it is 900 times in vain for today's subject because you and me are not using WASAPI. But finding that proper context in the program is too difficult because the program is too large (60K C++ program lines for this audio engine only).
So I gave up on it.
But also with a real reason ...

I see that Q1 is used to initialise timers for WASAPI. Btw, this is all (still) in today's secrecy because nobody uses (or can use I'd say) WASAPI the way I do it, which sheerly springs from me being 18 months ahead of everyody and the particular audio stack not being fully developed yet while I already started with it (when Windows Vista came about). Now, the fact that WASAPI can not be used for playback when its relevant services have been shut off in Minimized OS Mode (they are indeed with WASAPI services set to shut off in XXHighEnd's Settings), does (apparently) not prevent the initialisation to go ahead with everything, that possibly really setting timers which ARE there to let respond the OS differently when Audio Playback is in order (read : this dedicates to Audio). So Yes Nick, Q1 alone can very well influence SQ. I actually set myself to an "it will" because I could like it.

Like it ?
Well, we thought to know the SQ parameters by now a little, but it appears someone just found a new dimension within it.
Q1 on its own could "apply" a little of what is applied to WASAPI when used, but now it is separated from WASAPI itself. Read : buffer sizes which are influenced by Q1 explicitly for WASAPI, are now NOT in order when xQ1 is involved (only the product of the both (together with Device Buffer Size !!) is relevant) BUT the timing applied to the OS still happens. Not all the timing, but some part of it. This could be seen as "response resolution" which is within our Clock Resolution which has a life on its own (and was invented later than when we started to use WASAPI) and is explicitly not about that Clock Resolution itself, which is *also* controlled by WASAPI.



So as you see, complex stuff.

If anything, the lower Q1 would be the better one. This is a bit my own theory, but is also a remainder of the WASAPI era, although thus back then mixed with other buffer settings (plus a few miles less knowledge of it all).

Now why was my own sound so outrageously good yesterday. Maybe coincidence. But trouble is : I forgot when I set these settings, which also is related to rebooting and how they could have gone back with e reboot without saving first (of course I started with checking this out when your first posts about this emerged).
One thing I have in mind for very sure : the best sound I have now emerged 3 days ago after a reboot, but this was a special reboot which applied something special ... new to 2.11 ...


Thank you Nick !
Peter

PS: I notice that a year after, we are still not finished with exploring 2.10, right ? haha

Nick,

Listened last evening to small jazz ensembles, large orchestral pieces, other stuff.  Q1=15, xQ1 = 20 sounds really good.  I didn't do an immediate comparison with Q1=30 xQ1=5 which is where I had settings before.  My quick impression is that the 15 x20 setting is overall better: dynamics, balance, separation, imaging.  I will listen for a few days with your settings and then switch back and see, but given how good the SQ is, I may never switch back!!

R.

Hi Arvind,

No. Or at least I don't know because I never tried that (but you can ).

Btw, notice that the 12/24 explicitly sounds "bad" when it is set at its full "core power" (12/24). Set to 10/20, it sounds superb to these ears.

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Does this mean that those who have the 14/28 Mach III should attempt setting the cores to 12/24 & see if it’s better than their existing core settings?

Best Regards,

Arvind

Ramesh hi,

Can you hear any difference between q1 30, q1x 10 and q1 15, q1x 20. The latter sounds really nice here.

Your system is very similar so it would be useful to understand if you hear a difference too.

Regards, Nick.

Robert hi,

You are right, all up to date now.

Interesting that you hear differences too and feel q1 15, q1x20 to be the better settings.

Either we both have a common problem with our systems or something is not working as expected. Either way for now q1 15 and q1x 20 is definitely favourite here 

Regards Nick.