XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
March 28, 2024, 04:06:29 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j  (Read 16636 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« on: August 31, 2007, 09:05:39 am »


For those who break their brains and ears with Q1 sliders and all ... better go back to 0.9d.

The Q1 slider was supposed to be a replacement for what changed from the versions after 0.9d, but I am kind of definite it can't be done like that. The Q1 influences sound allright, but it can't bring back what 0.9d had.

What happened might be too complex to explain and it might even be too early to be able to.
Anyway from a technical point of view the versions after 0.9d were expected to sound different, coming from a necessary change in the program in order to be able to cope with the future. And for those who want to know : Although the Q1 slider with its setting of 14 was equal to "a" setting accordingly in 0.9d, the program had still changed, and changed the sound for its own matter. The slider cannot change that ...

A bit of a background story :

As I told elsewhere, the improvement of XXHighEnd caused and causes now audible anomalies in the other parts of the systems "we" use, that by itself implying improvements of the system parts concerned. And, since these parts now are under the control of people in my direct neighbourhood (the speakers, the amps, the DAC), it appeared that a latest change to the speakers -which was from the theoretical view good- would not work as intended. With 0.9d it does though, and it is just this that makes me say that 0.9d must be better.

In the topic ver .9D vs .9H from SeVeReD it was actually anounced, and although I never listened back myself until yesterday, I was near sure SeVeReD was right.

We must be careful, because things start to be so so delicate, that it starts to become nearly impossible to state that what I hear on my system, will be expressed in the same manner in yours. Otoh, so far it always worked, no matter what amps or speakers "you" have.
Mind you, as I introduced with 0.9i and the Q1 slider, we now operate at the level of resonances. Resonances in the diaphragm material (as far as I can tell) that can be over-expressed in front loaded horn speakers, and that influence the xover area largely. This latter may be a kind of premature, but as far as I can reason out myself at this time, this implies a huge impact to sound quality.

For now I can indicate one phenomenon going wrong with the versions above 0.9d u/i 0.9j : too much dynamics.
I think few people will admit that dynamics can be too high, but it really can and causes the most strange anomalies with it, which (so far) cannot be logically explained. Too much dynamics itself already is kind of impossible to explain, and for later reference : possibly this implies just *better* playback in the base, but physical materials might not be able to cope and things get over-expressed (like ringing in an amp, or a diaphragm which can't follow).

So far for now.
Peter
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
SeVeReD
Audio Enthusiast
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2007, 02:55:52 am »

This space reserved... hehe
I need some time to sit down and write.  I'm glad you brought this up first though PeterSt.  I've been busy and now need to pick up my daughter.  I'll come back and edit this later.  I've only spent a little time evaluating 9d vs 9j, and I have not even listened to 9j vs 9h.  9j with the Q slider is better I think than 9h ?, (I know I would have said something if it sounded the same as 9H to me), but I've really only spent a lot of time changing settings on 9j trying to make it work for me.  When I recently compared WMP and Foobar (Kernal Streaming) vs 9J, I did still find XXHE 9J to beat out both of those players... sounds like I need to go back and listen to 9d vs 9J again to reacquaint my ears... I really didn't want to be the spoiler again, but I'm glad you're using your ears.  Thanks for all the hard work Peter and I will try to put my ears into it again.
Logged

0.9z-8-3a WAV/CUE files on HDDs via MB FW400>; Win7 pro ttp://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021); [XXHighEnd player  Qs 7, 0, 0, 0, 0; eng 4; adaptive; scheme#3; player priority low; thread priority realtime; clock res 5ms: SFS 420 Wink dac is 24/192 w/32bits; Play Unattended; Stop Services ticked; Wallpaper & Show Back ticked - Mirror Image unticked; Start Engine unticked;garbage collect ticked; copy files to XX-drive; *quad arc prediction upsampling*: straight contiguous:>PCI FW800 card>Fireface 800 DAC [latency 2048 samples for 176.4]; usb/ethernet/mb audio shut off @ MB
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2007, 11:26:42 am »

Actually, things are rather imcompareable. You said that first (with 0.9d vs. 0.9h). But if you have a good low range woofer (like near 25Hz) or a subwoofer, in that area the differences seem to be best noticeable. 0.9d gives more tight bass than 0.9j, and therefore 0.9j is more prone to standing waves again (but, also in the higher areas). It may sound stupid from a listening point of view, but a not tight bass in that low range should be felt on the driver. You feel the wave and hear the vibes of it in the mean time, or you feel wobbling and hear "low sound".

In the higher regions the main differences can be heard in the timbre. A track like Saling to Philadelphia (Mark Knopfler), played at a higher level, makes you feel the cracking of his voice in the stomache with 0.9d, or just not with 0.9j.
Now, if you'd know that this timbre thing for 95% is determined by the speaker's performance, I already don't know what is best in absolute sense, because a. a speaker can overdo timbre so easily, and b. I don't know the real timbre of a voice.

What I tend to do from a technical point of view is judging tight bass (0.9d) as better than not tight bass or judging less resonating at very difficult base squarish sounds (0.9j) as better than more resonating. Both conflict ...

*That* both conflict seems typical for jittery influence (was this proven anywhere ?) and the one jitter signature makes the bass right but highs not, and the other way around. But, it is far more difficult IMO;

When jitter destroys the bass, it keeps on bugging you all over;
When jitter destroys the highs, it depends. I tend to (start to) believe that jitter actually "destroying" the higher frequencies (say above 5K) is not so much different from what is actually happening by nature already. Destortion from the driver(s), reflections and all that happens wrongly in the analogue domain. So, that natural destroying might be worse than jitter in that area. BUT :

Disclaimer : I don't take scientific or not readings on the internet for granted (if I read them at all), and these are all my own thoughts. So just take it as total BS for now, Maybe later that changes. innocent

When jitter influences the xover area of two drivers, it is a catastrophe. Of course it depends on the phase alignment that was achieved with the speaker for starters, but assumed the creator of it did his best to make it optimal, jitter will shift the connection between the two drivers.
In order to understand this better, let me first try to explain what I only could explain myself at last on the influence of jitter on the base 2 days ago :

First of all, I "proved" before that jitter makes a fluent sine more squarish; When samples are skipped, a volume level of one frequency stays the same too long, and when then the next sample is respected for its actual volume, the smooth step in between is lost and there is a too high jump to the next volume level. Now :
Knowing that the bass is a long wave phenomenon, I could never understand how this long slow moving wave could be "attacked" and destroyed by jitter, while at the same time it is so obvious that jitter impacts the tightness of the bass so heavily. Well, what came up to me two days ago, is that the squareryness which will emerge in that slow wave just the same, can't be followed by the relative slow woofer. It will try to make the jump, and when it at last is moving, it will even overshoot (depening on the control of the amp). Here is the wobbling bass, and while you'd still hear low frequency sound, it is undefined to the original vibe of the string etc., and actually it will be higher pitched than the original.

By kind of coincidence this occurred to me a few weeks ago at 0.9h without then knowing what happened, at Hatfield's End and Stonehenge 4, which "suddenly" showed a crazy volume increase in the sub low area, which I measured at a difference of 26dB (!) compared with the normal frequencies. I knew the record enough to know that this wasn't there before. And, since the normal level I played was at 90dB, the 116dB coming from the (rather continues on that album) low frequencies made it difficult to breath (this is serious).
Where I after this occurrence reasoned out the influence of jitter on the bass as explained above - went back to 0.9d and already noticed the difference on other tracks, I played the album again "knowing" what to expect, and indeed the crazy uplevelled low frequencies were gone.
It was another pure coincidence that my son went out of the room during playing this album, and came back within a few seconds to scream about the creapy things hapening in the hall; it now appeared that all doors were rambling, which I know they do when a good volume level of 15-16Hz is fed to the house. So, without eloborating too much further, 0.9j (already 0.9h would be the same on that matter), had shifted up the 16Hz to somewhere in the 23-25 range.
In addition, because of this jitter distortion a sine becomes squarish, additional energy is added, which may be (partly) the explanation for the 26dB increase of SPL.

Now back to the xover IMO being destroyed by jitter, let's assume we now "know" that jitter can shift a certain more or less steady tone, like that from a bass guitar. And, keep in mind that a bagpipe is not much different, though in an another frequency area (and composed of far more complex harmonics, but never mind that now);
What you'd see is that there will be an unnatural peak in areas of the frequency band, that actually *are* peaks with increased volume level. This is not only because of more squarishness and increased energy, but merely because they add up to the already "playing" tone in that area. Thus, where all "instruments" were playing together creating the homogene sound, now some frequencies add up at another level, and it sure was not mixed like that. The whole point (IMO) is, that when such a peak emerges at the slopes of the xover area (say left side), the carefully calibrated phase alignment of the two drivers will be completely destroyed. Because of the peak at the left side the roll off will shift to the right, and at the xover point there will be a peak now, and right from the xover point there will be a complete cancellout because of the antiphase of the both drivers will just do that. For sound this means a peak with right next to it a dip, and where this might cause four subsequent piano tones to jump (right to left) from normal to too high to nothing to normal, the actual effect for a gliding tone IMO is even worse;
E.g. a trombone gliding from low to high will show a stepping in the increased volume, followed by a giant step to nothing, followed by a step to normal. Effectively this is a squarish sound again.
But now take an instrument that as sibilance from itself, and the sibilance is created by harmonics, the "harmonics" emerging by inteference in air (and so recorded). This high frequency sibilance in the xover area will come to you as a very squarish sound, and it sounds as plain destortion.

Whether the above explanation for things is total BS or not, it is not different from all the same stuff I can just emulate. Thus, I can play with the xover, and I can play with jitter (XX) at the same time. Things do change largely, and the only thing I can say is that the explanation above I tried to find for it, just fits things.


The real message is, and this was in between the lines of the first post here, that what I hear on this matter (and it is of MAJOR influence), hardly can ever be perceived in the same manner in "your" system(s). We could never trade experiences and track examples, because "you" xover(s) will be at a different place and may be of another type.
As said before, in my system things seem to get profound after making the xover(s) theoretically better.

All together, my own judgements on versions of XX become kind of worthless for that.
sorry
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
Gerner
Audio Loudspeaker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2007, 08:17:06 pm »

When jitter influences the xover area of two drivers, it is a catastrophe. Of course it depends on the phase alignment that was achieved with the speaker for starters, but assumed the creator of it did his best to make it optimal, jitter will shift the connection between the two drivers.
In order to understand this better, let me first try to explain what I only could explain myself at last on the influence of jitter on the base 2 days ago


Hi Peter...

When you write as you do: "jitter will shift the connection between the two drivers". How can you explain that in other words than you do? Asking for an analog answer...eeehhh?
I mean, I understand a tone can stay longer or shorter and that is related to jitter. But how can jitter relate to x-overing two drivers that merely is tied to it's own analog AC world. How can jitter reach out for changes here?
The Q1 controller surely does quite some difference to the same track, but how does that relate to a filter network that controls the roll off of let's say two drivers?

Asume two drivers has been forced by a filter to act phase linear = like one driver. Now it's "one" driver, right?
Then let's take one driver only and what does jitter do with that then? There is no x-over to be found here.

Is my questions silly to you?  1eye

Gerner
Logged

Vista-Ultimate PC  -> XX version very old  -> USB -> CrazyT..soon NOS1
Troubleless playback.
SeVeReD
Audio Enthusiast
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2007, 11:54:45 pm »

Well, in short, yes PeterSt; I agree with what you are hearing.  I took the time again last night and this morning to listen between .9J and .9D.  I think I really didn't want to go back and forth between the two before because I didn't want to be the one to bring this up again ( http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=159.0 ).   I think that's a disservice to you PeterSt, so I'll keep trying to be honest about what I hear.  But, always keep in mind, YOU will always have to be the one to decide what is right.  It is your player.  If you get wishywashy with everyones input, you will probably come out with a wishywashy sounding player hehe.  9J can sound very airy and "exciting" up top and in the upper mids... , but ultimately, to my ears (and with the help of my pretty cohesive bass woofers and subwoofers), I'd still have to give the nod to .9D as being more whole, organic, natural, of one piece...it sounds more real to me top/mids to bottom.  Nothing jumps out of place with .9d.  What would be better? Maybe, (maybe maybe maybe) some of that air, high frequency nrg that .9J has... but maybe that's unnatural, and .9D is doing what it should there too.  GL Peter, don't give up please.  I'm going to hold onto .9D and .9J and keep going back and forth for awhile.  It was funny last night as I banged my head trying to figure out why José González-Veener wouldn't play with .9D until I remembered about diacritical marks... heh, but that can be gotten around with a file/folder name change (cue files? unless that too changes SQ)
Remember, It's your player.  People designing audiophile gear make artistic choices all the time.  Players that play everything for everyone are becoming a dime a dozen.  I'm glad you've focused on sound quality, and if we have to limit playback features, or modify our files to play back for the best sound quality there will be those of us who care more about SQ than album art, liner notes, pretty graphics, specific file formats... Thanks again.
Logged

0.9z-8-3a WAV/CUE files on HDDs via MB FW400>; Win7 pro ttp://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021); [XXHighEnd player  Qs 7, 0, 0, 0, 0; eng 4; adaptive; scheme#3; player priority low; thread priority realtime; clock res 5ms: SFS 420 Wink dac is 24/192 w/32bits; Play Unattended; Stop Services ticked; Wallpaper & Show Back ticked - Mirror Image unticked; Start Engine unticked;garbage collect ticked; copy files to XX-drive; *quad arc prediction upsampling*: straight contiguous:>PCI FW800 card>Fireface 800 DAC [latency 2048 samples for 176.4]; usb/ethernet/mb audio shut off @ MB
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2007, 09:06:00 am »

Hi Gerner,

This digital domain is not separated from the analogue domain. What happens in digital, will 1:1 influence analogue.

As I tried to explain, jitter implies squaryness. In its simples form this implies more energy. When this energy occurs on the slope of the xover (either side), it rises, and shifts to the "inside" of the xover. At that point it is destroyed.

Quote
Asume two drivers has been forced by a filter to act phase linear = like one driver. Now it's "one" driver, right?

Where I had my answer ready yesterday, in fact you give me a hard time doing it. Oh, I have one, but in order to apply it to the filter you have in mind (I know) I'd need additional reasoning. I have that, but something else came up which is related to the filter I use, and where I hear "things". In order not to let this too much offtopic, just a question for now : What filter types would you think this applies to (can apply to, act as one driver) ? Or do you say "all" ?

grazy
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
Gerner
Audio Loudspeaker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2007, 09:56:58 am »

Hi Gerner,

This digital domain is not separated from the analogue domain. What happens in digital, will 1:1 influence analogue.

As I tried to explain, jitter implies squaryness. In its simples form this implies more energy. When this energy occurs on the slope of the xover (either side), it rises, and shifts to the "inside" of the xover. At that point it is destroyed.

Quote
Asume two drivers has been forced by a filter to act phase linear = like one driver. Now it's "one" driver, right?

Where I had my answer ready yesterday, in fact you give me a hard time doing it. Oh, I have one, but in order to apply it to the filter you have in mind (I know) I'd need additional reasoning. I have that, but something else came up which is related to the filter I use, and where I hear "things". In order not to let this too much offtopic, just a question for now : What filter types would you think this applies to (can apply to, act as one driver) ? Or do you say "all" ?

grazy

When jitter influences the xover area of two drivers, it is a catastrophe. Of course it depends on the phase alignment that was achieved with the speaker for starters, but assumed the creator of it did his best to make it optimal, jitter will shift the connection between the two drivers.
In order to understand this better, let me first try to explain what I only could explain myself at last on the influence of jitter on the base 2 days ago


I leave my previous copy of your quote stay here.

I know that the digital domain is not seperated from the anolgue domain the way I think you mean it. Say the Q1 works etc.

I was hitting at to ask you how you think this is more crusual damaging at the slopes in a filter than when a given driver is not under influence of the filter as such? How does it happen that "In its simples form this implies more energy. When this energy occurs on the slope of the xover (either side), it rises, and shifts to the "inside" of the xover. At that point it is destroyed."?

Is it something you can meassure it does, or is it the meassuring equipment that also implies jitter the mic reacts too?

I refer here to your observations of suddently finding one version of XX shouting out 25 db louder in the bass compared to another version. Is this "25 louder" really caused by jitter? And if it is, yes damn, then of course it influnce the slopes of a filter if it sneaks in there...but remember we meassure our curves to be as wanted and what you say is then when XX is in the game it screws everything up?

Sorry being a bit stubbern here, but I can't understand it.  sorry

Your question about which type of filters "this thing" applies to: It must be all filters. Not only the phaselinear one piston filters we are playing arround with.

Gerner
Logged

Vista-Ultimate PC  -> XX version very old  -> USB -> CrazyT..soon NOS1
Troubleless playback.
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2007, 10:25:37 am »


Ok. The additional reasoning then for "unaccording the filter type". Possibly it is more than lame, but remember, I just try to find explanations for what I hear.
As a sidenote to you Gerner : I'm back to the original filter and ran random tracks from random albums for over three hours, and none of them sounded even slightly bad.

In the earlier post I started with the bass example, but did not come back to it because it did not seem necessary. As you seem to point out (because I can't fight it oterwise) it might be necessary to come back to what I had in my mind really. Remember, this is about the bass vs. midrange and I can already tell you it might not apply to midrange vs. tweeter. But it's to get the idea.

Jitter causes more squaryness. This by itself would be audible, but never mind that.
A bass driver would have more difficulties with that than a midrange driver. Remember, a voltage jump with near infinit rise time is already hard to be followed by electronics, let alone a diaphragm. And of course, the more weight the diaphragm has, the more difficult it will be to follow the steep rise.

Digital, followed by a nos-DAC, will indeed feed that to the drivers. So, with a nos-DAC we're asking for trouble.

Indeed it would be so that an unnecessary (jitter) high voltage rise would apply to both drivers. But the more it is in the upper range of the "low" driver, the more it would be a problem for that driver. Otoh, the more it would be in the lower range of the "high" driver, the more easy it would be.
So there's a contradiction. Both would not be "time aligned" for that matter.

Where the bass driver presents this distortion from not being able to follow, the implied more squarish will result in just less afterall.
Where the mid driver is fed with the same at the same time, I propose that it does not show this distortion (or less anyway), and it produces a more "square" in comparison with the bass driver. So it will be the mid side of the slope that rises and fills the gap towards the left.

Since both drivers do not produce the same in the xover area, there is no xover.

But during this writing, it springs to my mind that there is more;
While jitter incurs for more squaryness, it can be present in the music just the same. So synthesizer music would destroy xovers ... (???).

Sorry for the blahblah, but prove me wrong ...
From a theoretical view I will be right, in practice I can't tell. But it would be an explanation for what happens ...

Peter
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
Gerner
Audio Loudspeaker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2007, 11:00:00 am »



Sorry for the blahblah, but prove me wrong ...
From a theoretical view I will be right, in practice I can't tell. But it would be an explanation for what happens ...

Peter

Hi Peter

You might very well be right from your theoretical views.

In practice I hear this:

  • Playing with 9D, 9J or even spinning a CD record on my TEAC drive either through my OS-DAC and my NOS-DAC


I hear no changes in the filter slopes or the way the drivers interact, which I am almost sure off I would be able to detect.

Gerner  OffTopic  Sorry I think it is.
Logged

Vista-Ultimate PC  -> XX version very old  -> USB -> CrazyT..soon NOS1
Troubleless playback.
SeVeReD
Audio Enthusiast
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2007, 09:00:26 pm »

Any hints as to what's up next?  Are you starting again with .09D and adding features to that?
Logged

0.9z-8-3a WAV/CUE files on HDDs via MB FW400>; Win7 pro ttp://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021); [XXHighEnd player  Qs 7, 0, 0, 0, 0; eng 4; adaptive; scheme#3; player priority low; thread priority realtime; clock res 5ms: SFS 420 Wink dac is 24/192 w/32bits; Play Unattended; Stop Services ticked; Wallpaper & Show Back ticked - Mirror Image unticked; Start Engine unticked;garbage collect ticked; copy files to XX-drive; *quad arc prediction upsampling*: straight contiguous:>PCI FW800 card>Fireface 800 DAC [latency 2048 samples for 176.4]; usb/ethernet/mb audio shut off @ MB
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2007, 09:55:00 pm »


The only thing logically possible is make a testversion which acts like 0.9d but with the after that version added features (including Q1), and even add the option for 0.9d vs. 0.9j behaviour.
And then see further. wacko
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
PeterSt
Administrator
High Grade Audiophile
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16827



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2007, 10:27:31 am »


Despite the above, I now think it would not be the best way to go about with things.
The 0.9j version from today can be changed to how 0.9d worked. The only problem with *that*, is that it would not be 100% the same because it just can not. This by itself is related to "the future stuff", e.g. gapless to name one (which was future for 0.9d Wink). However, the way the program was changed to avoid "redundancy" should make the difference in SQ, and that can be changed to just have the redundancy in (a bad thing by itself from a programmer's point of view, but when the cause is good ...).

What will come from it is a 0.9k with the character of 0.9d and the features of 0.9j as long as the Q1 slider is set to 14 (that's what the setting concerned was in 0.9d). Now, *if* there would be an unintended difference in SQ afterall, obviously this would follow from a comparison between 0.9d and 0.9k (at Q1 = 14). If there seems to be no difference in SQ there, there should be a difference between 0.9k and 0.9J.

Please note : What will happen with what I propose, is that a perceived better SQ performance from 0.9j (which started with 0.9h) is removed again, BUT, now there's the Q1 slider which can effectively be applied to the old 0.9d (that's what it would come to).
If *then* the conclusion for some is that 0.9j sounded better than 0.9k there's not much more left to do than create the "test version" I talked about in the previous post. That test version however, would be a normal fixed version, which then would contain an additional "quality option" A and B, A representing 0.9d behaviour, and B representing 0.9j behaviour.
But I'd really like to avoid that (because it would add *another* level of the same redundancy).

wackowackowacko
Logged

For the Stealth III LPS PC :
W10-14393.0 - July 17, 2021 (2.11)
XXHighEnd Mach III Stealth LPS PC -> Xeon Scalable 14/28 core with Hyperthreading On (set to 14/28 cores in BIOS and set to 10/20 cores via Boot Menu) @~660MHz, 48GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 14393.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/*1*/ Q1Factor = *4* / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = *10ms* / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = *10.13*  (max 10.13) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / Stop Desktop, Remaining, WASAPI and W10 services / Use Remote Desktop / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD Off (!) / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *62* / Nervous Rate = *1* / Cool when Idle = n.a / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = Optimal / Time Stability = Stable / Custom Filtering *Low* (16x) / Always Clear Proxy before Playback = On -> USB3 from MoBo -> Lush^3
A: W-Y-R-G, B: *W-G* USB 1m00 -> Phisolator 24/768 Phasure NOS1a/G3 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (16ms) -> B'ASS Current Amplifier -> Blaxius*^2.5* A:B-G, B:B-G Interlink -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers. ET^2 Ethernet from Mach III to Music Server PC (RDC Control).
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere (also from the PC).

For a general PC :
W10-10586.0 - May 2016 (2.05+)
*XXHighEnd PC -> I7 3930k with Hyperthreading On (12 cores)* @~500MHz, 16GB, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit build 10586.0 from RAM, music on LAN / Engine#4 Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/1/1/1 / Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 4096 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Straight Contiguous / Include Garbage Collect / SFS = 0.10  (max 60) / not Invert / Phase Alignment Off / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 3-5 / Not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ Playback Drive none (see OS from RAM) / UnAttended (Just Start) / Always Copy to XX Drive (see OS from RAM) / All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist / WallPaper On / OSD On / Running Time Off / Minimize OS / XTweaks : Balanced Load = *43* / Nervous Rate = 1 / Cool when Idle = 1 / Provide Stable Power = 1 / Utilize Cores always = 1 / Time Performance Index = *Optimal* / Time Stability = *Stable* / Custom Filter *Low* 705600 / -> USB3 *from MoBo* -> Clairixa USB 15cm -> Intona Isolator -> Clairixa USB 1m80 -> 24/768 Phasure NOS1a 75B (BNC Out) async USB DAC, Driver v1.0.4b (4ms) -> Blaxius BNC interlink *-> B'ASS Current Amplifier /w Level4 -> Blaxius Interlink* -> Orelo MKII Active Open Baffle Horn Speakers.
Removed Switching Supplies from everywhere.

Global Moderator
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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 0.073 seconds with 20 queries.