SQ of 09-z2

[PeterSt]

Allright. Three evenings of playing further, and I must say that Special Mode is definitely better.

I went back to Adaptive Mode again after a couple of days. Indeed it is so that too much detail can make you restless or without peace or something, but I don't think it is that with me. Adaptive just feels better. It doesn't make me *look* for details or other technical stuff. It makes me listen to music.

Thread priority at realtime is definately more detailed

Yes, I can imagine that. Lowering the Thread priority would be following the same line.
But (for others too) be careful you won't receive glitches at track boundaries from lowering the Thread Priority.
I will try it too ...

[Marcin_gps]

Try it, try it...
As long as Player Priority stays at low, there are no glitches. I'm glad that am not the only one here changing the settings like socks :D

[ivo]

I can agree with that Special now is better than Adaptive. Adaptive is kind of smeared, but Special is more precise and concrete. Bass is tighter, mids are closer and highs are a bit more sparkling. Downside is that Special needs more CPU as we go with lower Q1 values. The lowest I can go is Q1=-2, but then my E6300 rocks around 30%.

As I have found that HiFace uses 2048 sample buffer then I set Special mode to 2048 and tune Q1=0. It gives me 16 samples of latency between XX and the Hiface and I am happy with it for now.

Ivo

[wushuliu]

I can agree with that Special now is better than Adaptive. Adaptive is kind of smeared, but Special is more precise and concrete. Bass is tighter, mids are closer and highs are a bit more sparkling. Downside is that Special needs more CPU as we go with lower Q1 values. The lowest I can go is Q1=-2, but then my E6300 rocks around 30%.

As I have found that HiFace uses 2048 sample buffer then I set Special mode to 2048 and tune Q1=0. It gives me 16 samples of latency between XX and the Hiface and I am happy with it for now.

Ivo

I am new to XXHE and am still learning about the settings. The first few days I played around in Adaptive Mode trying out different thigs. Yesterday I switched to Special. I had to keep Q = 1, any higher and there was distortion. However, the sound quality was as you described - more precise. But I did not find it analytical or detailed, just cleaner, maybe even slightly, very slightly rolled off at high frequency. The sound is not as wide as I heard in Adaptive, but there is more depth. To me it sounds like there is a reduction in background noise. It is the closest to vinyl 'analog' I've heard so far in HE, or any music program. Amazing.

[Marcin_gps]

Folks, it seems that all of my previous combinations was WRONG. I tried different priorities to find the best sound, but neglected the split size setting. I thought that setting it high would be the best, well, it's NOT! Try it yourself. Quick comparison between 50 and 2000 MB would give you the 'image'. Small value is speed, speed and detail and nothing fatiguing about it, while 2000MB seems warmer at first, but it's just dull pulp where everything is hazy. I wonder how much is to discover...

[PeterSt]

Yeah, ain't it nice ...

I wonder how much is to discover...

I must say that I knew this, but it is a bit of a theory, and completely dependend on how your PC (mobo) is sticked together. I mean, there's always stuff like higher memory addresses which need to be addressed indirectly ... memory banks which don't work the same (but a first always does), so indeed I always stick to a low amount. But it's hardly science ...

So to be clear : this sure won't count the same for everybody !

What a hobby.

[Marcin_gps]

Another remark from my side:
I prefer Scheme-3 only with upsamling. Plain 16/44 sounds best with No-Scheme

[ivo]

OK, after getting some knowledge from Peter about the buffers i did some listening tests with latest XX in KS mode. All tests are unattended with Dev buffer = 2048 (original Hiface). Did use Chesky demo disc (24/96 files).

1) Engine4, KS:Adaptive mode, Q1=1
Sound is wide, individual instruments are kind of playing each at its own location if looked at the stereo image.

2) Engine4, KS:Adaptive mode, Q1=30
Sound is wide, individual instruments are kind of playing each at its own location if looked at the stereo image.
Compared to 1) it is duller. Bass and voices have a little like dullness.

3) Engine4, KS:Special mode, Q1=1 (16 samples)
Sound is not so wide, it is a bit narrower than with Adaptive. It is a bit thinner, but more towards listener. Individual instruments are now more in a concert rather than each at its own location. Voices are clearer and closer to listener.

4) Engine4, KS:Special mode, Q1=30 (2032 samples)
The same like 3), but seems like getting more full, however maybe too much...

5) Engine4, KS:Special mode, Q1=7 (the min value where I got 2048 samples for XX buffer)
Choose to stick with this, as it seemed to me the most i like.

Anyway, to me it seems like special mode is sounding like altogether, but the interesting thing is that in special mode i start loosing the feeling of a stereo. I mean in Adaptive mode the stereo effect is easier to hear. However, in special, the sound is deeper and I guess highs are better pronounced.
Actually the testing was done to understand how the XX buffer length impacts the SQ. To my understanding in Adaptive mode, shorter buffer is better, but in Special just the opposite.

One last question to Peter: In Adaptive mode when Q1=1 and Q1=30, how many samples are these values?

Ivo

[PeterSt]

One last question to Peter:

That will be the day !

With Q1 = 1 it will be the Dev Buffer Size. Anything higher for Q1 will have "some" higher amount, but it is nothing to work with or do something with. But it's also not meant to do something with. But think something like each higher Q1 value adds 10% or so, and its not even linear.
With a higher Dev Buf Size setting you can reach 40000 easily, but I think I limited the upper range to 1 second, because at least XP USB devices can't go over 1 second (which would be 44100 if you play 16/44.1).


Ivo, I must admit, it must be rather tough for someone like you -who just wants to know it for the better results- to get the answers from someone like me who doesn't want to expose everything and all. But I'm doing my best to make it as clear as possible and with the honest figures, so *if* you are working with them, that it makes sense (it would be very wrong to let you work with different figures from reality).

Regards,
Peter

[ivo]

Thanks Peter!

I just want to understand what I am turning I mean what this control like Q1 actually does. That is my nature, I am an enigineer.

Ivo

[Marcin_gps]

I went further and decreased the split size value to minimum, that is 12 MB and have to tell you that it is even better now. Beside the fact that the speed is great, the stereo went '3D', bass is tighter and more powerful. How could I be so wrong before. You have no idea (or maybe you do :D) how much time I've spend on fine-tuning the settings in XXHE But it's good -best sound I've ever heard from my system 

Peter, do you think it can improve further? I mean XXHE capabilities.

[PeterSt]

Hey Marcin. Again thanks for sharing this all ... something good may come from it indeed.

Peter, do you think it can improve further? I mean XXHE capabilities.

Well, as I said a few days ago, I already had the feeling/idea that using a specific "layer" of the memory would allow for improvement;
At this moment I can't be sure whether it is exactly *that*, you prooved to be the cause of better SQ, or that it's just resource related, but eaither reason should theoretically be able to lead to better SQ. On this matter it better be the memory, because the resource related thing will be much more tough to control *and* will differ per user (PC).

I'll start a bit of experimenting in your directions and see what I can make of it myself.
In the mean time, I can only encourage others to do the same, once again referring to the major importance of equal views on this, making it "law" automatically.


Peter

[boleary]

First impression of split file size of 12 v. 60: 12 is brighter everywhere but also sounds more thin, more like Engine 3, no kernel streaming. 60 sounds less thin with a fuller mid range. Again first, very quick impression--was leaving the house for work. Will try again this evening.

[Marcin_gps]

Yes it's thiner, but try the buffer size at 4096. This should make things better or not :D Maybe you will like the sound of lower values, it all depends on your system.
I wonder if I can have both - details and rich, powerful sound.

[boleary]

Gotta live with compromises....I guess. After playing several files many times the "best" sound seems to come with different split-file sizes. Generally, female vocals and violins sound better with higher sizes, 120 to 200 (Patty Griffin doesn't sound bad at 4200, though 200 is preferred!). Bass guitar and piano like lower values, 12 (Oscar Peterson, Night Train,24/96) to 60 (Bass Face Trio plays Gerschwin, 16/44). The age and manner of recording might be part of the reason the Oscar Peterson sounds so good at 12.....don't really know.

Another generlization may be that at lower volumes 12 is probably the best size.