XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
May 29, 2015, 04:07:20 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Dec. 31, 2012 : XXHighEnd + Phasure NOS1 DAC receive 6moons Blue Moon Award !
** "Lonely at the very top" **
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
 on: May 22, 2015, 10:15:45 am 
Started by rakeshpoorun - Last post by juanpmar

Having a dual CPU in the music (file) server really seriously does not make any sense. Take a laptop for that ! (to emphasize what I mean).

Are there some minimal specifications for a server laptop like amount of memory, CPU speed, USB ports or hdd size?

Hi Juan,

The laptop was an example to show how irrelevant it all is. In the end I would never use a laptop because they often suffer from congestion (look at the ever burning disk light) and might be unresponsive for a (too) long time. Still it gives the (my) idea that it doesn't matter much.


Hey Peter, sometimes is difficult to understand your yes/not at the same time,  probably the same applies to me and to many people here and it shows the complexity and multitude of possibilities of what we are treating here.
But...sometimes also the answer could be more specific or at least "some" more specific. E.g. I was waiting for something like: would be better if you don't use a laptop and use instead a Pc with at least 4Gb of memory and a i3 processor, etc. Or better even: take a look at what I am using now as Pc server.
Of course for me is difficult to deal with a foreign language with enough subtlety. So do not understand this as a reproach but as a humble proposal to avoid countless posts asking back the same thing.

Kind regards,

 on: May 22, 2015, 09:41:29 am 
Started by KnB - Last post by KnB
It failed under 4 and 2 and 12 witch was my last setting.
Signature is updated with my current settings.

 on: May 22, 2015, 09:02:24 am 
Started by rakeshpoorun - Last post by PeterSt
Hi Rakesh,

I have not much lust to bring across an ICT course/education. If you ask for advice then I can give you that and if you can't accept the answer then it could be better to not ask the questions in the first place. There's just too much involved in explaining (all).

But I will now make it worse for you (Wink) :

My profession is (computer) performance specialist. Started with that explicitly, back in 1975. Still working on that on a daily basis. XXHighEnd is one of its products where the power of the PC is utilized for SQ (and CPU usage is 0.0000x% anyway). NOS1-USB is also one of its product with 24/768 input capability.
Important ? of course not.

More important could be the first ever "logistics software" (today named ERP software) running on a (Novell) PC network. This was in 1989 and two AT servers running at a speed of 40MHz served 120 XT 12 MHz clients concurrently, all with faster response than any mainframe available at the day (with the notice that Cray's really were used for something (science) else).
So in those poor AT servers them SAS ports could have been useful but still weren't needed anyway.

Hey, the danger with topics like this is that readers may start to think that we need super computers to run a simple audio player. So I am answering the questions because you ask them. I tend to answer in the direction of your liking (say "speed") because it is my (real) profession. But at some stage it goes too far because it can't be utilized by one single poor user (client in IT terms) which the audio thread is.

In comparison, today's normal work is about 1000s of such clients causing ~ 8000 sales orders with say 100000 sales order lines and all behind that to deliver those lines the next day early morning (think fresh food). One server is doing this and STILL no 12GB etc. ports are in there because of no benefit. However, smart caches and multi processors and smart threading etc. etc. sure is there. To AVOID the necessity of this stuff, just because at some stage (which is all stages) it does not exist yet. But the ERP software did.
XXHighEnd makes use of the same "technology" were possible, just because it is me. You won't know it, but try to browse the Library Area with 400K tracks in there, all with coverart, and *know* that there's not even a database involved.

You can well say that one of the big "hobby's" I have applied in there is using a giant amount of data (which in the end is more than any largest company will have stored), without a single piece of "database".
I think I know what I am doing (or advising for that matter).

Best regards,

 on: May 22, 2015, 08:16:27 am 
Started by michaeljeger - Last post by PeterSt
Michael, search in the Release Notes for :


 on: May 22, 2015, 08:13:32 am 
Started by KnB - Last post by PeterSt
If you are using the Custom Filter ... The SFS can't be that low. I did not sort out the limits, but I think that about 2 will still be OK.

I use 4 and when I give e.g. 4 subsequent VolUp commands (so 4 in a total of ~ 0.5 secs) then things also run in trouble (starts to hiccup and is difficult to catch up again).


 on: May 21, 2015, 08:01:20 pm 
Started by michaeljeger - Last post by michaeljeger
I encounter sample rate problems.
In the latest version 200a with drivers 1.03, samplerate switching does not work correctly.
All music files with 96000 and 48000 sound too low, as if played at 88200 and 44100 respectively.

Anyone else encountered this?

The old XXHighEnd works perfectly.
The only other time this happened in the past when using HQPlayer.

Any advice?
What further information should I provide?

Regards, Michael

 on: May 21, 2015, 05:31:37 pm 
Started by KnB - Last post by KnB
Hi Peter,
Tested with osk from RAMdisk, same result.

 on: May 21, 2015, 04:58:32 pm 
Started by rakeshpoorun - Last post by rakeshpoorun
By the way,

for those who are interested in a really minimalist set-up for an XXHighend PC, you might want to consider this soon to be launched mini ITX LGA-2011-R motherboard by Asrock.


    Mini ITX 6.7" x 6.7"
    Socket LGA 2011 R3 Intel Xeon processor E5-1600/2600 v3 series
    Supports Quad channel DDR4 2133/1866 ECC DIMM, 4 x SO-DIMM slots
    Supports 4 SATA3 by C612
    Supports 1 x PCIe 3.0 x16
    Integrated IPMI 2.0 with KVM and Dedicated LAN (RTL8211E)
    Supports Intel Dual GLAN ( Intel i210 + Intel i217 )

Full specs can be found here:


 on: May 21, 2015, 04:36:36 pm 
Started by rakeshpoorun - Last post by rakeshpoorun
In conclusion, Peter, I am inclined to accept your advice at face value and may well decide to forego the X10dac and use the X10dax instead (it is a dual processor motherboard but does not have the  onboard SAS3  controller).


I am trying to attach a picture to the specifications of the Supermicro X10DAX motherboard. I would welcome your opinion (and anyone's else who cares to contribute for that matter) as to whether it is any good for my purposes?

Maybe I should clarify what are my purposes even if it is not evident from the above? Well to have a single pc that will make use of XXHighend, use 2 processors and be fairly stable/reliable over time. Eventually maybe migrate all the hard discs including OS discs to another pc so this motherboard could be dedicated to just playing music files during playback and nothing else.

Best regards

 on: May 21, 2015, 04:00:43 pm 
Started by rakeshpoorun - Last post by rakeshpoorun
"Probably the biggest standout feature of the Supermicro X10DAC is the onboard LSI / Avago SAS 3008 controller. The SAS3008 is a cacheless HBA that can be used either in IT mode (HBA) or IR mode (RAID 0, 1, 10). The SAS 3008 is a very fast controller that features eight 12gbps SAS3 ports. As we have seen already with some of our SAS3 benchmarks such as the Toshiba PX02SMU080 800GB drive we benchmarked recently, it would not be hard to populate this controller with eight drives each capable of over 1GB/s transfer speeds. When this controller is combined with the ten SATA 3 ports, one has up to 18 storage ports available using onboard controllers."

Nah ... There is no single way that you are going to utilize any of this. Not even for one (fast) port. So this is not overkill, it really is "rubbish". Think like having a large V12, drive that out of a cargo plane (up in the air) and think you will be down faster with that V12.
(thinking of it, you will be faster down because it weighs more than a line-4 motor)

So there are a 100 other things that determine the overall speed (of in this case file transfer) and you wont gain a thing on it. Too difficult to explain, so you'd have to trust me.

Also, by the time you can utilize that amount of disk ports and thinking of today's (or just tomorrow's) hdd's of 8TB, you wished you have invested in a factory of ripping machines for which wasn't $ left anyway because the millions of albums are too expensive. Next you must also have an 8 channel system at least, so you can listen to 4x stereo at the same time in order to listen to 1% of those albums for the rest of your life.

Have the cheapest for this but try to get some SATAIII ports because at some stage some speed can be handy (like when making a backup copy).
There is much (more) to it to make things fast but there is also much (more) to it to make things "slow" becaue irrelevant. Just don't even think about it ... that would be my idea.


Hi Peter,

Some strong words indeed. Maybe the use of "rubbish" goes some way to justify your points and validate your perspective...Add weight and substance to your arguments. I should try it one day. Maybe I will start winning some arguments with my little ones instead of trying to reason with them as to the reasons we do or do not do certain things. I imagine I will say, "You want this expensive train set. This is rubbish (in inverted commas). It is too fast for this track...It is like putting a V12 in a car and dropping it from altitude (oops it might in fact go faster but that's not relevant). I am right but it's too hard or time-consuming to explain. Bugger this. Just trust me."  I will report back.

Having said that, you are probably right. Let's see a CD is about 500MB but the same album in high-resolution is roughly 6GB. I imagine all in all 2 x 6TB discs should be quite sufficient for my entire music collection (about 2000 cds + 400 dvds + 100 blu-rays that I may want to store on there). I would probably want to use an additional disc for back-up. I imagine to make use of three SAS3 ports is not a bad idea here.

I imagine that people here have not hallucinated when they commented that the best results they obtained was by using a SATAIII hard disc as a source like the Western Digital Velociraptor. They are easy to find and cheap but relatively low capacity so let's say I have two of these and still back-up to the 6TB disc. I would be using 5 of the 18 ports and have the possibility of using this to store ripped blu-ray discs as well if I feel like it.

Why is it, I wonder, that most people I know who make a living selling audio products always use expensive car analogies to make a point? My second car was a BMW 540i V8 and sure I did not need that much power when I drove all the way from the UK to Italy in the summer, but it sure beat driving a 2cv Citroen for sheer pleasure! But car analogies don't really float my proverbial boat so I will move on...

So there are a 100 other things that determine the overall speed (of in this case file transfer) and you wont gain a thing on it. Too difficult to explain, so you'd have to trust me.

I do not follow your logic here.

I thought, and you seem to agree, that high file transfer speeds is a good thing.  So the ability of having 12Gbp/s file transfer seems to be a great idea unless you are saying that the motherboard and hard drive manufacturers are lying about these gains and that I won't actually enjoy these speeds? If this is the crux of your argument and you felt so strongly about it, then say so. If on the other hand, there is a price to pay elsewhere, maybe it would be enlightening to hear what the actual reasons are. I can only speculate that one looses out elsewhere because of the added complexity of the motherboard or because the file transfer protocols may impact on the way the motherboard accesses data on the hard drives? Or could it be that the raid card increases power consumption? Or does this subsystem have implications in terms of Windows OS which would not fit in well with the way the XXHighend software operates?

I am the first to admit that I was not too sure about the choice of this motherboard and this is why I posted here about it in the first place. In the hope that someone with more experience than I have would explain whether it is a good choice or not.

In conclusion, Peter, I am inclined to accept your advice at face value and may well decide to forego the X10dac and use the X10dax instead (it is a dual processor motherboard but does not have the  onboard SAS3  controller). But I must say it was a very odd way of putting across your point...

Best regards

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
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 0.429 seconds with 15 queries.