Does buffering time (latency) affact SQ in your system?

[Windows X]

I'm running 1ms buffering time (latency) in my system right now. It's making great different for me though it couldn't be possible to get better sound than my CD transport. What about your system? Do latency cause any concern on you?

[PeterSt]

Windows X, hi and welcome here.

For others : the question may look strange to you, but it really isn't. It's hopping over from somewhere else, and I think I'm not entitled to answer for objectivity.

A bit of clarification so you know what the question actually is about :

Windows X can't get it done to find a PC playback means that will superceede his CD Player (Esoteric P-05) and has the idea that this is because the latency of PC systems is too high to really squeeze out the details. Het got this by empirical finding (a sort of : the lower the latency the better it sounds).

To help you on the track with answering : 1ms is something like 200 24/192 samples.

The latency related phenomena in XXHighEnd are :

- Device Buffer Size;
- Q1 for KS Adaptive and KS Special Mode.
- In the end even SFS (split file size). <- I wouldn't be able to talk about that myself, haha.


Hopefully some of you want to spend a few lines on this subject for Windows X.
Thanks,
Peter

[manisandher]

Windows X, I think you will find that most (if not all) regular XXHighEnd users have found that buffer sizes affect the sound. On this forum, you will find many discussions related to this - just search for 'device buffer size' and 'split file size' (or 'SFS').

Furthermore, with the right hardware, you can get to super-low device buffer latencies with XX. There is a kernel-streaming mode known as 'Special' that allows you to get down to these super-low latencies. One sample is achievable!

My experience is that very low device buffer latencies give a 'sharper/tighter' sound and higher latencies tend to soften this. I've settled for a device buffer latency of 1024 samples which gives me the best balance of sharp/smooth sound with my RME AES-32 and Weiss AFI1 interfaces.

FWIW, last year I sold my Esoteric P70 transport because I felt that overall I was achieving a better sound from a PC and XX than from the CD transport. However, there is one area that I'm not sure I've matched - and that is in sheer dynamics. Of course, now that I don't have the CD transport, this is difficult to assess.

Mani.

[Windows X]

I used to think CD Transport can be inferior to music server until I get my hands of real hiend system. At first I don't think Esoteric P-05 can sound better than my project if it's done with hardware modifcation. But the more of time I spend to make my ears adapt to inner details and micro harmonics, the more CD Transport being placed beyond my grasp. And now with buffering and timing controlled for best possible 1ms playback, it still couldn't put up with Esoteric P-05 for all equipments I've tried excluding Mykerinos (That could be possible but it needs to challenge against P-03 or P-01 for its development cost).

I could not say lowest possible latency without dropout or spike always make better performance in every equipment. They need to be at stable state and not many people can archive stable 1-2ms without harshness sound. It involves proper optimization of hardware/software environment and application itself to archive that.

[PeterSt]

Quiet here ? ...

[Windows X]

Seems to be infamous topic for discussion  .

[PeterSt]

It looks like everybody in in church all day. But in the end ... if you do a search for "latency" it's quite easy to see it's everybody's subject.
But not for a Sunday I guess.

And otherwise ... since you are here I guess you believe me by now, which obviously is nothing different from believing in yourself. Now it's only a matter of trying (XXHighEnd) with the notice it is free, but with a kind of a downside that especially on Windows7 you might just "need" Core Appointment to get there, while this is about the only thing not in the trial version (which is coincidence, because Core Appointment has been outside of the trial version always, while Low Latency was introduced the beginning of 2010). But I guess you can get sufficiently low without glitches just to try, while I hope the rest of the "hi-end" stuff in here also will help. Whether you are ready to do it (try) I don't know, but *if* you do, please let us know your results.

Peter


PS: At browsing through some topics here, you will see peoples signatures and what they use for settings. You can learn from that too.

PPS: You will also see at reading through topics that it is a tad different here from elsewhere, and I dare say that without exception people here are like you. This will include for many the understanding "why", but once being here all is different, because you *are* here because of SQ. Not so anywhere else that I know of. So I'd like to challenge you the other way around : try it, and if you don't perceive differences by all the means you can find within XXHighEnd only (which are too many to ever combine while they all make a difference), say so, and know you will be the first. Haha. Good luck !

[Marcin_gps]

Hi Windows X!

My experience in this area is that I prefer lowest possible latency and I've tried everything, believe me The bottom line is: low latency gives you the most out of music files - best details, control and smoothness at the same time, but there are certain requirements from hardware and software side that need to be fulfilled in order to get 'proper' SQ. I promised Peter that I will not continue my topic (with all the tweaks that I find significant), but I'll be happy to send you a PM with my ultimate tweaks, which btw are quite different from those that I published some time ago. In few words to get the best out of XXHE playback you need:
- very fast PC
- slimmed OS
- ramdisk
- few OS tricks

If you choose wrong OS, you won't be able to get a good sound in the first place. Other things I mentioned will boost SQ, make your setup more transparent.

Cheers,
Marcin

[Josef]

It looks like everybody in in church all day. But in the end ... if you do a search for "latency" it's quite easy to see it's everybody's subject.
But not for a Sunday I guess.

LOL: Yes, but there is a reason why this is such a controversial topic - in short, I'm not sure anybody completely understands what exactly is going on as some of it is counter-intuitive (which is a nice way of saying it makes no sense at all  ) and experimental findings are not always positive i.e. sometimes low latency can become 'too much' and distort the sound or, should I say, impart our enjoyment of music. (which, by definition, is subjective, so it makes the topic even more difficult....)

But - that is why we have Marcin!

I promised Peter that I will not continue my topic (with all the tweaks that I find significant), but I'll be happy to send you a PM with my ultimate tweaks

Ah, forget about Peter  ( I'm sure he won't mind as everybody else went to church anyway )

We also exchanged some mails on the subject and I think you are really The guy who has tried more then anybody else out there! AND is willing to share what he had found 

I say, give us the goods and let the controversy begin!

[PeterSt]

Let me add a thing which is not all that obvious, and somewhat harder to find in this forum :

Where the ultra low latency really excels is in only a handful of electronic (ambient) albums, and *then* (for good comparison) only with an NOS DAC allowing for the resolution needed (which would be NOS 24/384 in my book). So, only with this handful of albums (because of their high transient synth music -> sustained by NOS) the ultra low latency gives that additional dimension of detail. These albums all sound GREAT throughout (and might you want to know : plainly distort on parts with an OS DAC because of the filtering in there really making a mess of it). However, use this ultra low latency (which really is near to the sample level) on more "normal" music and it is as Josef said : the joy has gone. Somehow ...

Only few people will disagree on this (the Man Down Under comes to mind), but then their system clearly outbetter mine on e.g. the amp or speaker department, so YMMV. The only thing I know that this preference is rare.

Also, maybe a bit contrary to what Josef said (for safety) ... not much is subjective here. At least not that *I* can recognize from this great group of people. Also, whenever I listen together with a random other person, it never happened that there was even a small sign of disagreement. So, these things are not subjective, if you're only in the realm of "close to reality" which makes the comparison to just that easy. We all at least have *that* reference you know. But you may need to jump some hurdles to get there.

Peter

[Windows X]

Marcin_gps, the hard thing is fast PC introduce more ripple from power and more interferences in the system degrading sound performance. Making lowest possible latency to lowest spec available today is quite a though ones. Especially making it stable is like impossible job though I managed to do it few days ago. Please send your tweaks to me. I'm open-minded enough to try out stuff before making conclusion about it. I found some from your post playing a great deal on it and some made it worse and I fixed something like "Clock Rate" though.

Josef, low latency at unstable state will make harsh sound. You need to make your system really stable and make sure your hardware is capable of handling it.

PeterSt, what interface do you use with your NOS DAC? Which hardware model do you use to connect to your DAC with among USB/Firewire/PCI/PCI Express?

[PeterSt]

Hey X,

Before we proceed, I'd really like you to do us a favour;

As I know from your posts by now (not only the few here), you are talking from some "distance" or generality perhaps. I mean, as how I observe it, now we are going to dive in the merits of PCs and OSes and all, while you are still at that "general" level, especially referring to you not using XXHighEnd for your references. This was quite ok for the initial question, but it is quite not if you are talking e.g. Foobar (or whatever) while we talk XX. Nothing is compareable, and while you seem to be dealing with 1ms of latency as the low side, here it is the high side. Still your low side seems to give you problems, while here, well, I think we have not at all. BUT, we can't be sure, and you may just as well be right on already our high side is subject to improvement.

But do you get what I mean ? you already are a man of far too many theories (from your own), and it is IMHO useless to keep on talking about theoretical situations which we both can not compare for their real life merits.
If you use XX for your reference, we both know what the reference is, and if *then* you post the same as you did, we will know what you are talking about. Next we will try to get it all together and improve if possible.

So : what you seem to suggest now is that "we" should improve while you have the problem. This is non-sense.
On the low side it is a different story I think, especially for those (like me) who think it doesn't sound the best. But *now* you must first judge this, and you can't do that with any Foobar.

Is that ok with you ?
Thanks,
Peter


PS: Please do note that whatever your theories are, your experience is of great value. This means that we will listen to your findings, while next we both and together try to improve again. It happens all the time, and as is known here : I can't do that alone. So, appriciate that you are appreciated.

PPS: Specs of the DAC will be up soon.

[Windows X]

No dude you got it all wrong. It's more than years before you start posting about XXHighEnd for me to get serious computer audiophile (may not as much as now but I do know lowering buffer size in ASIO improves SQ). I did try yours but not license ones. I did heard tons of licensed version of Amarra and XXHighEnd but none can beat real hiend CD transport so far.

Are you certain that you really manage to get 1ms at its stable level? Is your hardware/software environment really ready for it? I'll try to make it sound not offensive but choosing .NET Framework for player draws a lot of bottomneck for UI. I understand that your playback part isn't there but for many reasons behind it couldn't perform better than WASAPI when properly optimized.

When I'm to make judgement, I made it from actual result of experiments not just stood up theories of possibilities. Yes, those includes foobar, J River, Amarra, HQPlayer, Ayrewave and XXHighEnd (mine for trial and someone's machine from paid license version).

For paid license version, the owner of that machine said he couldn't feel that with Weiss INT202 being inferior to his $10k CD Player but tons among hiend listener of his comparison didn't agree with him though.

I'd like to hear your background about your system, Peter. Do you use real system at hiend level. They cost at $50k for minimum. Please don't think that I try to classify money for quality but that's the world for commercial products we live in. There're tons of garbage and real diamond in this field.

[Marcin_gps]

XXHE could play with latency of 1 sample not 1ms, which gives 1/44100 of second, right? But not many drivers allow for that.

[PeterSt]

Are you certain that you really manage to get 1ms at its stable level? Is your hardware/software environment really ready for it? I'll try to make it sound not offensive but choosing .NET Framework for player draws a lot of bottomneck for UI.

That is exactly what I meant. Theories theories. And a kind of deaf so it seems because this must be the tenth or so post addressed to you (including over at CA) without one single response back that it's great that there's actually a player out there which achieves the low latency what you asked for originally. The only thing "we" achieved is that you're here, which is a good start. But now it's time to stop theories and try. And read better maybe. Stop nagging about your old fashioned 1ms and let's see whether YOUR system is capable of 16/384000 which is 4/100 of your ms and is 25 times as low (hehe).

Look, there's this vertical bar. You are on it. To the right of that bar (somewhere) are the good people of CA and while they can't help it not to have your experience they are still good people. To the left of this bar is this community. As good people, but sadly for you, with more experience on this. Most don't understand what is hapening or why, as it is on the other side of the bar. On major difference : nobody (and I said *nobody*) doubts or questions. Why ? because they listen. That other side of the bar does not listen (that I know of or could notice in that thread). Here ? here it is you who doesn't listen. No matter your stories, because they don't fit reality, by itself because this is not about 1ms you keep on talking about.

I'd like to hear your background about your system, Peter. Do you use real system at hiend level. They cost at $50k for minimum. Please don't think that I try to classify money for quality but that's the world for commercial products we live in. There're tons of garbage and real diamond in this field.

I know what you mean, and to a certain degree I agree with that. Let me say, in between the lines, that it may not be all that important what system *I* have, and that it may be more important for both me and you what systems the others in here have. Here too, browse through the sigs of people and you will see many with speakers of that 50K+ alone. If they mention it at all, and e.g. I don't.
But as you already told, it maybe says something, but not all. I will say though that my system sounds better than yours. Just because I know what DAC you use and mine superceeds that by far. Theories here, but I know mine well. And forget about that Weiss you mentioned in the first place. I'd call that distortion machines. Nice if you don't know better. Haha.

but choosing .NET Framework for player draws a lot of bottomneck for UI

??

I understand that your playback part isn't there

Oh, uhm ... so you just like to make statements, or what ?

but for many reasons behind it couldn't perform better than WASAPI when properly optimized.

Now what ... I'm lost here on what you want to say. Maybe it's the language barrier. But I assume you know WASAPI is just in there, and also that hardly anybody uses it anymore because the KS is way better. But maybe you are telling me that the WASAPI engine is sh*t because of using dot-net in a UI which is not used somewhere.

Peter

PS: May you not have noticed, the tone of voice in this topic can't be found in any other here. It will be merely me, but you incur for it.
[reset ]

[Windows X]

Well, I wouldn't hold it back then.

1. I know .NET is for only UI and act as controller in MVC model. I know which part actually run the playback system. It sets out playback system to run at highest possible of priorities. But why .NET? Don't you know safe code has a lot of limitations and you blame it's Windows 7's fault for it.....Windows 7 is best OS for audio but that's for WASAPI (it even lifted something off and improved something for that if you care to look deep enough) not kernel streaming controlled from .NET controller. I know you did check and compare WASAPI but you missed a lot of things there. They use same libraries but system manages it in different ways.

2. I know you found your way from various kernel streaming mode with your experiments. And people like that usually fond of their discoveries and think that was for the best. Until they witness the greater ones and admit their defeat to get better.

3. I DID hear all of your best XXHighEnd configurations. I DID stated that people whom I know including me heard the comparison between paid version XXHighEnd and $15k CD Player. And result for golden ears was defeat of XXHighEnd in many aspects. I DID throw away all theories for listening tests and verdict is XXHighEnd couldn't beat standalone average $15k CD Player, let alone $30-50k separated CD transport/DAC/clock system. It could be Weiss' firewire fault for that though but I didn't own one right now so making illegal test is out of question.

4. I'm now aware that your ears aren't adapted into real hiend system.....yet. This happened to me a lot before taking real hiend system seriously up to purchasing $60-70k system in home and listen to it allmost all days of everyday. Any discussion between us is futile until you really understand the capability of $15k CD transport,DAC,clock combined together for $45k for just source system alone.

5. I'm aware you did choose high power computer which sucks at great deal for SQ. cicsmemoryplayer.com is good reference place why you should stay away from it. If you don't get it then you don't know what hiend is at all.

6. From my tests against Esoteric/DCS/Emm labs, latency above 2ms couldn't even stand a chance against these at all. Its transparency and linearity aren't bearable sound in this field. Most people who owns $300-500k and listen to them seriously will just walk away saying it makes no difference for them between this and iPhone/car/public listening. They both couldn't give them what they expect at this level.

7. All my so called theories are written with purpose to backup my experiments results not to lead it to conclusion without real experiments. Try experiments XXHighEnd against real hiend system like $100k or above if you can with your own ears against reference level of CD Player or transport. I'm pretty sure the result is quite clear if the system parts are properly chosen and well set for highest fidelity.

Until you get your real hiend system, we'll talk about this again but I did setup proper WASAPI system that beats XXHighEnd in SQ and performance. It even works fine for playback at 1ms latency of 24/192 with cheapest netbook performance. I'm not tryign to wage flame war or trolling for anything. This is just what I found from what I heard in $50-100k system with all possible configurations of computer source including paid version of XXHighEnd/Amarra/HQPlayer (in trial mode).

If you're kind enough, lend me test version that has all features and I'll give you honest result against real giants with RME HDSP AES-32 configuration. I'd like to buy for a try if UI can be more acceptable enough for me. But since I don't intend to keep on using it, buying for only testing only doesn't sound wise for best mode. If there's better card, let me know. I also want to beat up CD transport so badly though.

P.S. I'd like to get things straight and done without delay of throwing nice words around and get to know nothing in return. If you're the real deal, you should set things straight and fast too. I don't like acting like I'm being open-minded while inside I made up mine. If things we see aren't the same, yell it, kick them in until we both set it straight for true facts to reach conclusion.

[manisandher]

Any discussion between us is futile until you really understand the capability of $15k CD transport,DAC,clock combined together for $45k for just source system alone.

I contend that even a $45K disc-based digital source isn't good enough. My reference is analogue going through my Pacific Microsonics AD/DA. Once a digital source can play a file recorded from analogue and match the same analogue source going through the AD/DA in real-time, then I know I'm there.

Oh and Windows X, don't throw a $$$ amount back at me...

Mani.

[christoffe]

4. I'm now aware that your ears aren't adapted into real hiend system.....yet. This happened to me a lot before taking real hiend system seriously up to purchasing $60-70k system in home and listen to it allmost all days of everyday. Any discussion between us is futile until you really understand the capability of $15k CD transport,DAC,clock combined together for $45k for just source system alone.

Hi,

you should have a look to your arguments from a different angle.

We have to invest at least  $45k to get a similar SQ, so the return on investment is ............... , or you have unlimited access to the Bank of America.

best

Joachim

[Windows X]

OK. Please return to the point. My point is computer transport couldn't beat decent $15k CD transport or higher. Why? Because people listen to that level aren't satisfied with it and I'm trying to point out why. I agree this may sound like throwing money in to hear or so but that's sad facts for foolish hiend audiophile lust.

I tried to explain in words from both forum discussion in other places and face to face but it's really futile without actual comparison because the gap of perception is too wide. I apologize to leave it unconcluded resorting to throw money into explanations.

[Telstar]

3. I DID hear all of your best XXHighEnd configurations. I DID stated that people whom I know including me heard the comparison between paid version XXHighEnd and $15k CD Player. And result for golden ears was defeat of XXHighEnd in many aspects. I DID throw away all theories for listening tests and verdict is XXHighEnd couldn't beat standalone average $15k CD Player, let alone $30-50k separated CD transport/DAC/clock system. It could be Weiss' firewire fault for that though but I didn't own one right now so making illegal test is out of question.

With what reference-level DAC did you hear that?
Besides, theoretically an integrated CDP is better than two separates, but they have to make more money giving you two boxes with two psu and lots of metalwork, otherwise is not highend

You couldnt have tried ALL possible combinations hardware, software AND DAC, as you claim.
If you spend some time studying the stuff (like i did 2 years ago, yes 2 years), you would realize that ALL means to connect a DAC to a computer are intrinsecally worse than the transport-dac connection in a CDP, hence the latency cannot be lower.

Telstar.

[Windows X]

I used to believe integrated CDP is better than separated as integrated amplifier is better than separated preamp and power. It would have too much contradiction of separated preamp and power is actually better than integrated and CD player is better than transport/dac combo...wait...some people also said preamp isn't even neccessary if D/A has volume control.

Each to their own. Mine fitting may not fit yours and mine misfit could be your favorite. My transport comparison that computer audio being inferior to CD transport aren't actually from me myself but dissatisfaction from people who love to throw a lot of $$$ to CD transport bashing today's presented computer audio. To be honest, I feel no less satisfying from my computer transport than Esoteric P-05. The gap isn't too wide to conclude being out of league for me but it is for crazy people who dare enough to invest $300k on their system.

Yea. It's a fact for crazy people like them. And I can't argue with it since I heard the difference too in their system (in wider gap than my system).

[PeterSt]

Wait ... Do I perceive another perspective here maybe ?

Maybe (or hopefully) we talk about the wrong subject all the time ... So, let's have another attempt ...

OF COURSE you can't just have any random DAC and expect it to operate as an integrated CDP. But okay, you know that, because a P-05 / D-05 combo wouldn't be all that much different. But of course there's all the difference in the world where it comes to noise and PC's and stuff. The interaction, the speed, the latency ...
Well, you asked about my DAC, and I ignored it. Sort of. I mean, when it is about the $$$$ department, I would. But now I'm not sure ...

The commercial DAC I have available around these minutes, is made to be world's best (and could easily cost a car for that matter). It has been made with all one could think of to be the best, and there's no single compromise in there. There is nothing in there which is not new and of course was made for PC connection. It's not synchronous, not asynchronous but direct as h*ll, and therewith carries an overall net jitter of better than 0.5ps. Phase noise better than 120dBc/Hz at 100Hz. It's 24/384 filterless, the filter provided by software (XX) which does not ring a single sample, and is phase-true throughout the frequency range. THD+N is 0.0019% in the audio band and better than 0.004% all the way up to 192KHz. Don't compare this with e.g. Sabre figures, because those are for periodic waves while I talk about music measurement here. That's why I call all OS distortion machines (sorry for your DAC ), and it is physically audible with normal music examples I have available here.

Is that maybe what you wanted to hear ?
Just like this is not about stupid $$ it is also not about stupid figures, but they DO matter. In the end it is about the sound and it is exactly this why your system will always loose. Always. I'll even dare to bet you a 1000 $ from which you can easily pay the ticket to get here. If you'd win. If not, no problem, because you'll go home with this DAC and be a happy man. And a few less $$ which is a good thing. Haha. But bring your CDP and DAC.

If you don't mind, I don't use an analogue volume control - it only kills. That's why it's not on this DAC either. I do use the digital volume from XX though, and it's the best there is. It is lossless (may it say something to you), and maybe you can find one somewhere else, but I don't think so.

But maybe you didn't want to hear something like this either.
Let me know if the bet is on.

Peter


PS: For others : sorry about these stupid posts. Maybe just skip them.

[Windows X]

Peter, if you feel offended in my words, I do apologize then. I'm trying to say as representatives of people who use $300k or so system and today's solutions in market and popular website aren't enough for people like them. I didn't meant to say your website is not popular but talking about website for most people like them. I feel stunned and shocked from their remarks too. Actually, it's worse than what I said in here. Some may say it for being realistic and some may add sarcastic depending on their mood lol. But thanks to them, I managed to put on my guts to make it through stable 1ms with proper optimization for best sonic preferences in my system.

If you get this serious, I'm rooting for you to show your system in RMAF and prove them how in the world they're so wrong in treating serious computer audio being hiend. Challenge your system to popular EMM Labs/Esoteric/DCS/Soulution/Spectral and so on that CD is REAL DEAD.

With my limited resources, I couldn't overturn their way of listening, maybe you can do it man. And it would be my kudos when you succeed

[Josef]

I did setup proper WASAPI system that beats XXHighEnd in SQ and performance.

Rather then being theoretical - can we get practical?
E.g. Would you care to share how you configured a superior WASAPI system so everybody can test it as well?

[Windows X]

Well, sorry. I took that back. It's just my system and what I compare with isn't even paid license version. I'm hoping to hear direct comparison with dedicated XXHighEnd soon before making proper judgement again. It's really way too early for me to test software that's not designed to run on the same environment.

I couldn't get trial version of XXHighEnd to run at 1ms with the same hardware configuration that I believe it's for the best so different design may yield better result. It was too rash of me to prejudge. Sorry.

[christoffe]

PS: For others : sorry about these stupid posts. Maybe just skip them.

Hi friends,

I do agree. It is like a kindergarden.

best

Joachim

[Josef]

I couldn't get trial version of XXHighEnd to run at 1ms with the same hardware configuration that I believe it's for the best

Then maybe you can share how you measure 1ms latency i.e. what settings you are using with your WASAPI player and what settings you tried with XX so maybe somebody can help with latter? 

[Windows X]

I haven't heard of properly configured XXHighEnd system myself but just opinions from other people. I realized how foolish I am to mixed up my judgement with others before hearing ones for myself and feel ashamed to it. To prevent any further misconduct, I won't give anymore remarks on XXHighEnd or anything that could relate to it until I can hear properly configured ones with my own ears.

[christoffe]

I haven't heard of properly configured XXHighEnd system myself but just opinions from other people. I realized how foolish to mixed up my judgement with others before hearing ones for myself and feel ashamed to it. To prevent any further misconduct, I won't give anymore remarks on XXHighEnd or anything that could relate to it until I can hear properly configured ones with my own ears.

Hello Mr. X,

where is the next bar?

best

Joachim

[Windows X]

Yaa. Maybe I'm still drunk. Gotta find some medicine to cure my hangover

[christoffe]

Yaa. Maybe I'm still drunk. Gotta find some medicine to cure my hangover

Hi,

your answer is not what I meant.

When we see you in CA you are invited to spend us a free beer, minimum!

best

Joachim

[Windows X]

Ahhh thank you

But I don't live in USA so I may not make it there.

[PeterSt]

Nice T... food then.