Windows 8 and 09-z9, a match made in heaven?

[juanpmar]

Is Windows 8 and the new version of XXHighEnd (09-z9) the best combination so far between the OS and XXHighEnd?. The answer is, in my opinion YES.
Naturally certain conditions are required, for example, it also requires of a proper hardware configuration in the Music PC (as Peter has suggested in another post http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2421.msg26705 # msg26705 ), and to find solutions to some problems of W8. Also the other system components require special care. As for example in some aspects as the vibration isolation or having power lines for the sound system separated from the rest of the house.

For the changes implemented in the hardware of my Music Pc I have faithfully followed the recommendations of Peter. I took out from inside the computer the hard drives with music and  I left in the computer the hard drive with OS/XXHighEnd as well as the hard drive I use as Playback Drive both with SATA III connection.
The hdd with music, at this moment 2 x 2TB each, are connected to a self-powered USB 3.0 hub and this hub to an USB 3.0 port in the motherboard. I tested the differences in SQ of the two mb USB 3.0 ports and the remaining free port in the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCIe card until finally I chose the one I think sounded better, that is one in the mb.

With respect to software, I have not touched anything in the W8 BIOS, so it is installed as is (Windows 8 Pro). No updates installed and no virtual memory. That's it.

I've tried almost all the possible combinations of W7 and W8 with previous versions of XXHE and with the latest version. I tested also some combinations of settings in 09-z9 as Phase Alignment on/off, different values ​​for Q5, iPhase off or +/- ON, clock resolution etc. and in the end I used the Peter settings for 09-z9, which for me also sound the best.

As I say W8 and 09-z9 it is in my opinion the best OS/XXHE combination so far. The main differences in SQ I detected with respect to other combinations of OS/XXHE are:

- Detail. The sound is the most detailed I've heard. I used, as always, a few albums I've listened literally hundreds of times. I have discovered new sounds that were hidden and it was an unbelievable surprise. Never before, in any case, I had heard certain sounds that are now perfectly audible.

- Density. The sound is dense and I wish I could explain, dense as I mean is not equal to thick, but a fuller sound with more information, I could define it, for lack of better words, like a more mature sound, more complete.

- Bass. The bass deserves a special comment. At first it seems too large, even a little fuzzy, but if you get used to it you´ll be hearing a bass that seems to be more faithful to the recording than previously. That is, if the bass is exaggerated it appears so, however in well made recordings the bass appears with an almost perfect intonation and depth. In my opinion, if the bass has the right size and it is correctly reproduced, as it is the case in the 09-z9 version, it becomes an essential factor to give the sound that density to which I referred.

- Palpability. The combination of the three previous sections gives the sound a palpability even greater than at other times. It seems as if the sound had a physical embodiment, as if it could be touched.

- Volume. With regard to the volume level I'm not sure if in other versions it is as important as it is now. I think that the richness of the sound is volume level dependent, and I guess that it will happen in each system (including the listening room), in my case with the 09-z9 version the better setting is -33db/-31.5db, that's the equivalent to 30db/-28.5db when PeakExtend was active in the other versions which is the volume that was using before most of the time.

Finally, I would like to comment on other important issues such as the control of vibration and the separate power lines for the rig that also contribute to some extent to the excellent sound of W8/09-z9.

With regard to vibration, if anyone has seen the photos of my system it may have called attention to a number of discs I've placed on the amplifiers and the NOS1. Both have the boxes without sufficient isolation for the vibration (sorry Peter) and if you hit with the fingers on the external plates you can feel that the boxes are not tight. So I put the discs above and also looking for the correct placement that avoids these vibrations, once I placed the  discs hitting with the fingers give a deaf sound. I think it increases the sharpness. The same applies to the foot of NOS1 and amplifiers. In this case it seems that Peter used a Magic Feet or something like that, I use some cones I retained from a Wadia cd player and have placed them, in the case of the NOS1 beneath the four corners and in the center, 5 in total. What I can say at the end is that all these changes contribute to the best sound. To complete the issue of vibrations the external hard drives are suspended by rubber bands, one being a special case Sharkoon and another a wood box with ther rubber bands that I made ​​myself. The computer case has also some pressed rubber feet that I´ve found at a very cheap price. I'll put some pictures in the post HOW I'VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND ...

The separate power lines, as it is well known also contribute to the SQ. I have it in my home although in my case I can not have a ground different from that of the building in which I live, I can switch off from the electrical box almost the whole home except the sound system. With respect to the part that concerns the Music PC what I did was take out from the audio circuit (again thanks Peter) the hard drives with music and I have connected it to other independent power breakers of the house and the sound equipment. These hdd are also are connected to a power conditioner.

The combination of all what I have said here makes a sound that IMHO is the best so far. I guess that to the extent that Peter will delve into Windows 8 will appear better XXHE versions, which,  although it seems difficult, we all know from experience that it is possible.

Thanks Peter.

Best regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Hi Juan,

After reading your review, I can only concur with your conclusions (altough I do not have such a masterful writing). You put in words perceptions that I can't express right enough, but there are at least 3 things that striked me yesterday as I started a more critical listening.

I was stunned at the bass presence ! I was quite shocked by this as it never felt that way before.

The second thing is that when we switched to 09-7, I felt there was a loss of presence for the most prominent instruments (the ones that are in the "front"), as a trade off for more details. Now these instruments have regained their presence AND the details are still there, without any loss. I should precise: more details than before in fact.

And there is a "blackness" that just render all the music even more alive and striking.

It is the first time I follow suggestions from Peter and many other posters. There is a sense of "family" here that I never found anywhere else.

Thanks Peter, thanks Juan... And thanks to all that share their appreciation, positive critics - all in a respectful manner.

We are in a "micro climate" here and I hope it will stay that way

Alain

[Stanray]

Thanks a lot Juan,

That will motivate me to install W8 and 09-z9!

One question though: For music, do you use a SATA 3 HDD and a converter to connect to the USB 3.0 mb?

Best wishes,
Stanley

[Nick]

I’m a little slow to post on 09-z9 because there have been so many change in my system to settle in (new amp, 2nd balanced mains transformer for my woofer modules etc etc).

So this afternoon I patched with 09-z9b to take a look at the tool tips for Q5. Just for a starting point I tried Q5=10 and Clock at 1ms (I’m using W7), wow  Then moved to SFS of 20 (was 2.5) and again WOW ! The just to see what would happen I put Phase Alignment + on at Phase alignment factor of 2.

W T F

I am L O V I N G 09-z9b and what Q5 is doing here, I totally agree with Juan and Alan about sound characteristics, there is such a sense of palpability.

Now back to listening.

Thanks Peter, 09-z9b is spectacular

EDIT Double Ooops
I thought I was posting in the "09-z9 Impressions" thread. Maybe W7 and 09-z9 are also a match made in heaven haha...

And now the version is z9b not the fictional z9a.

[PeterSt]

To avoid confusion : 0.9z-9a officially does not exist. 0.9z-9b does.

[Stanray]

One question though: For music, do you use a SATA 3 HDD and a converter to connect to the USB 3.0 mb?

Oh, I read your signature: WD USB 3.0 HDD.

OK!

Stanley

[Scroobius]

Hey Nick - Well what can I say? - on this occasion I have to completely disagree with you but it may point to some difference between our systems that needs further investigation.

First I am surprised at how much difference Q5 makes to SQ in this system. When it first appeared it did not seem to make much difference but now it does!

I started at Q5=2 and clock=0.5 and the sound is lively and dynamic. So I set Q5=10 and clock=1 - wow what a difference the sound suddenly sounded much more analogue and easy to listen to. But for me it was not an improvement the sound was flattened and the problems "brushed over" (I was listening to a very poor Tony Allen recording). Actually I preferred to listen to it dynamic warts and all and not "brushed over".

So I listened to a Stekpanna albums always superb SQ - and at Q5=10 & clock=1 the life and dynamics were squashed. Going back to Q5=2 and clock=0.5 was a big improvement. The dynamics and life were back.

No question at least for me the latter sounds much better.

I also tried using Phase Alignment again and found that it makes no noticeable difference, to these ears anyway. PA used to make a significant difference in this system as did SFS. Now SFS makes very little difference to SQ (but like PA it used to make a significant difference).

Well that's the way I hear it anyway.

Cheers

Paul

[Nick]

Paul hi,

It's very interesting that your experience is so different. If I understand what Peter has done with Q5 (from the tool tips) I think that tuning settings might become much more PC specific to motherboards processors and disk types etc. I'm thinking that different PCs may have carateristic periods for operations like memory access, processor scheduling and so on. If Peters Q5 setting is helping to break these characteristic frequencies up and different PC do have specific periods then could be that we will hear very different things on different PCs.

 To explain more about what I'm hearing its actually very like your system, it just sounds so much more real palpable and dynamic, with a much sweeter to end. There real energy in performance with the whole spectrum contributing in a consistent way to the sound.

Might it be that your PC already has a "nice" spread of internal transaction frequencies, so sound is already [extremely  ] good ?

It would be interesting if Mani and Brian could try the settings I posted above as they have the same mobo and processor and this might give some indication of whether or not we are getting to the point of more PC specific settings now.

Perhaps Peter might comment on this ?


Of course it may be that these settings just help with my "noise" problem in some way but I don't think it's that.

We should get a chance to try stuff at mine soon, it would be great to get your opinion on this and generally how things are improving (I hope). You should bring some ear plugs though just in case, haha.

Best Nick.

[juanpmar]

One question though: For music, do you use a SATA 3 HDD and a converter to connect to the USB 3.0 mb?

Oh, I read your signature: WD USB 3.0 HDD.

OK!

Stanley

Hi Stanley, all my music hdd are SATA and I use the external boxes to convert SATA to USB 3.0 to connect it to the mb.
Sorry, I have to update my signature.

I post some pictures here and in I'VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND ... with the USB 3.0 boxes, the Anti-vibration discs, etc

Best regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Hi Juan,

I like what you did to absorb the vibrations of your external HDDs

I could make a box too to dampen my external cases, but the metallic one - can you tell me a little more about it ?

As for your USB connection to the NOS1, I see what seems to be an adaptor of some kind ?

Regards,

Alain

[juanpmar]

Hi Alain, first let me thank you for your kind words in a previous post.
The external cases for the HDDs are made here in Spain and I bought it in Amazon.es but I guess you can find something similar in any computer shop. See here the manual in Spanish and English http://www.tooq.es/repository/products_manuals/MANUAL_TQE3508_3517_3523.pdf

Sold in Amazon.es for only 15€ (20 $ Canadian)http://www.amazon.es/TooQ-TQE-3523G-Serial-Windows-Ubuntu/dp/B005E0EJAI/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1370125301&sr=1-2&keywords=Tooq

I use an adaptor to connect the USB 3.0 cable to the NOS1 because the NOS1 is USB2.0, this USB 3.0 cable is connected to the TeckNet USB 3.0 PCI Express Card.

Best regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Thanks Juan, I will check the links and keep you posted. I don't know why I never took care of the dampening before... And I do hear the hard drives not only when they work...

You deserve the kind words

Regards,

Alain

[christoffe]

The  NDAS technology by IOCELL with an eSata connection seems to be superior to cases with an USB connection only.

http://www.iocellnetworks.com/neo/images/manuals/manual-netdisksolo.pdf

Joachim

[juanpmar]

The  NDAS technology by IOCELL with an eSata connection seems to be superior to cases with an USB connection only.

http://www.iocellnetworks.com/neo/images/manuals/manual-netdisksolo.pdf

Joachim

Hi Joachim, I tested the eSata connection with a Sharkoon SATA QuickDeck external case and in my experience the eSata port sounds worse than the USB 3.0

http://www.sharkoon.com/?q=en/node/1299

Regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Hi Juan,

Could you be more specific about the worsening of the Esata vs  the USB 3 connection ? Since it is possible for me to switch from one to the other... I would have thought that the fact of converting from USB to Sata inside the external case could induce something not desirable... On the other hand, Sata does not allow the same lenght between components, so it may not be practical for those who prefer to put their drives away from the pc...

Alain
Edit: I was wondering if the fact that there is power in the USB  cable (with the signal) would have a negative effect on the signal ? Sata does not have any power on its cable...

[juanpmar]

Hi Juan,

Could you be more specific about the worsening of the Esata vs  the USB 3 connection ? Since it is possible for me to switch from one to the other... I would have thought that the fact of converting from USB to Sata inside the external case could induce something not desirable... On the other hand, Sata does not allow the same lenght between components, so it may not be practical for those who prefer to put their drives away from the pc...

Alain
Edit: I was wondering if the fact that there is power in the USB  cable (with the signal) would have a negative effect on the signal ? Sata does not have any power on its cable...

Hi Alain,

I´ve made that test some time ago and I really don´t remember exactly the details why was worse eSata than USB 3.0. At that time I considered that USB 3.0 sounded better but it was with W7, I have not tested it again with W8 but if you are very interested I could do it. About the length of the cable, yes the eSata are shorter so you need to put the eSata case closer to the PC.

Best regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Thanks Juan,

I will do some tests to check if I hear differences between the 2 connections. I have a Vantec USB 3 x 4 ports hub, but I never really used it on a regular basis.

While I am sure that your tests were correctly conducted, I was wondering about the 2 different interfaces, as Sata does not carry any power within its cable (that could affect the data), and when using USB, it needs to be converted to Sata (maybe "converted" is a too strong word, as I am not sure what it requires).

On the other hand, USB seems "stronger" at the connection level. I had problems with Esata connections, as it is not always obvious to connect on the right side the first time (and I talk from experience, since I "broke" a few cables just by pushing the connection in without ensuring I was on the right side)...

Regards,

Alain

[boleary]

Hey Nick and Paul any chance you guys could update your signatures with what are your latest 9Z9 settings? Also are you still using the Chinese sounf filter card?

Don't mean to be offensive so this is just a suggestion: could folks post 9Z9 SQ impressions in one thread-- maybe the 9Z9 Impressions thread--and post playback tweaks in the appropriate place--not in the SQ thread. This current thread has just gotten too confusing and there are now so many important software changes in 9Z9 that it would be great to reserve the 9z9 impressions thread just for that purpose. Seems to me a newbie would have a very difficult time trying to read about the SQ of and best settings for 9z9.

Yesterday I was playing 9Z9, W7, with PA off, a SFS of 60 and all other settings the same as Peter's and the sound was pretty incredible. Look forward to playing with Q5 settings.

[AlainGr]

Understood and sorry for the out of thread...

[boleary]

No problem Alain; I woke up a bit grumpy this morning so that didn't help!

[AlainGr]

I know the feeling But you are right

Regards,

Alain

[juanpmar]

Yesterday I removed the partition where W7 was, convinced as I am that W8 sounds better and also that Peter is not going back to W7 (as he said). So I have now Windows 8 Pro and XXHighEnd 0.9z-9b in one SATA III hdd and nothing else.

All the SQ qualities are not only maintained but improved, especially the sense of palpability of the sound that is now even more remarkable.

Regards,
Juan

[manisandher]

Yesterday, my wife was out at work and both the kids at nursery so I decided to bite the bullet and get W8 sorted out again on 'Le Monster', the music PC for my main listening room. I had installed W8 on this machine back at the beginning of February but couldn't live with the over-emphasized sound. I kept the HDD untouched but it seems that unplugging it from the SATAIII socket whilst in Minimize OS mode and with the Win7 shell somehow corrupted Win8. In any event, I had to resort to formatting the HDD and a totally new Win8 install. Most of it went pretty smoothly, but I then had major issues with privileges.

I've had W8 installed on the music PC in my office/study since the end of January and have, until recently, simply ignored the over-emphasized sound - OK for background music as I work. It's worked faultlessly and I've never had any privileges issues. There's only one user set up, set to Administrator by default. But with my install on Le Monster, I just couldn't get a single user account to work. After quite a while trying, I resorted to setting up another account, set to Administrator. This required going back and forth between the Win7 shell and Metro, and having to uninstall/reinstall the Win7 shell - I had to do this several times as I'm sure I made loads of mistakes along the way. But eventually everything worked. Phew!

Is Windows 8 and the new version of XXHighEnd (09-z9) the best combination so far between the OS and XXHighEnd?. The answer is, in my opinion YES.

I agree 100%. 0.9z-9b on W8 is a quantum step up in SQ compared to 0.9z-9b on W7. The latter is very, very good - probably the best sound I had achieved before yesterday. (I still have it on another HDD and will go back and take a listen at some point). But the 0.9z-9b/W8 combo is in another league... IMHO.

The main differences in SQ I detected with respect to other combinations of OS/XXHE are:

- Detail. The sound is the most detailed I've heard. I used, as always, a few albums I've listened literally hundreds of times. I have discovered new sounds that were hidden and it was an unbelievable surprise. Never before, in any case, I had heard certain sounds that are now perfectly audible.

Agree 100%. But this is 'real, full spectrum' detail, and not fake HF detail. There are no edges to the sound anymore, etching out and separating instruments. The sound is whole, and yet exquisitely textured.

- Density. The sound is dense and I wish I could explain, dense as I mean is not equal to thick, but a fuller sound with more information, I could define it, for lack of better words, like a more mature sound, more complete.

Agree 100%. This is like the 'whole' that I was talking about above.

- Bass. The bass deserves a special comment. At first it seems too large, even a little fuzzy, but if you get used to it you´ll be hearing a bass that seems to be more faithful to the recording than previously. That is, if the bass is exaggerated it appears so, however in well made recordings the bass appears with an almost perfect intonation and depth. In my opinion, if the bass has the right size and it is correctly reproduced, as it is the case in the 09-z9 version, it becomes an essential factor to give the sound that density to which I referred.

Agree 100%. The bass is just right. Switching PA on seems to destroy the fullness a bit too much.

- Palpability. The combination of the three previous sections gives the sound a palpability even greater than at other times. It seems as if the sound had a physical embodiment, as if it could be touched.

Agree 100%. I've just been listening to a whole bunch of female singers - glad the wife's not here

- Volume. With regard to the volume level I'm not sure if in other versions it is as important as it is now. I think that the richness of the sound is volume level dependent, and I guess that it will happen in each system (including the listening room), in my case with the 09-z9 version the better setting is -33db/-31.5db, that's the equivalent to 30db/-28.5db when PeakExtend was active in the other versions which is the volume that was using before most of the time.

I'm in two minds here. On the one hand the sound is phenomenal even at low volumes. On the other hand, I find myself wanting more.

The combination of all what I have said here makes a sound that IMHO is the best so far. I guess that to the extent that Peter will delve into Windows 8 will appear better XXHE versions, which,  although it seems difficult, we all know from experience that it is possible.

I have no idea where we go from here. Peter has tamed the beast that is W8. Actually, he's gone even further than that. In my office system, I keep the LAN connected in order to use remote desktop (I use my work PC to control the music PC, which is just perfect for me) and to stream files across from a NAS drive in my basement, keeping the office/study free of whining HDDs and totally silent (an absolute must for me). I haven't done a lot of playing around with XX settings, but am certain that Q5 is helping to minimize any negative effects of keeping the LAN on. The sound in my office/study is simply superb (music PC -> NOS1 -> Sanders Magtech amp -> Celestion SL600 speakers... all fed off a balanced AC transformer).

I'd encourage those of you still on W7 to take the plunge. W8 is the way forward... IMHO.

Thanks for everything Peter.

Mani.

[juanpmar]

Hi Mani, I'm glad that you agree almost entirely with my views.

With respect to the importance of the volume level to get the best sound quality, I have to say that effectively at lower volumes the sound is also fantastic, I just meant that there is a "perfect" volume level (for each listening room) and that given the high quality of sound achieved with the combination of W8 and XXHighEnd that volume level express better the qualities of the sound. Moreover it seems easier to find this "perfect" volume due to the excellent SQ. Some kind of interdependence.

Regards,
Juan

[PeterSt]

On the volume thing ...

A longer time ago (could be three years) I spent a more extensive post on just that what you (I think) try to describe, Juan;

In aftermath I am fairly sure that this (back then) was dedicated to a certain "XXHighEnd setup" because I didn't notice much of it anymore. BUT :

While in the 0.9z-8 versions of XXHighEnd I just wasn't able to have any right volume setting for W8 *plus* it needed the higher volume to get the sound more detached from the speakers (which was a W8 property I'm sure), today ...

Today that feeling from three years or so ago is back. So, when I understand Juan correctly, I have the exact same feeling. And somehow this is even logic to me, although a bit far out :

What I reasoned out those 3 years ago is that the level is to be of some consistency when you want to perceive the real thing. So, not too loud and also not too soft. What I by accident found is that it just needs to be at real levels. This is where I measurued my baby wing here, saw that it produces 90dBSPL (at one meter distance and wing open) and next tuned my stereo on pianos for just that level. This worked (back then).

As said, I never thought of that anymore, nor did I feel the urge to tune in this sort of reality level, but today with W8 this is so again. And no, I didn't start to think about this because Juan said so. I found that myself which should mean ...

Well, that only if just two persons make the notice, there should be some truth in it. Thus, not for W8 best settings in general, but because there could be truth in our brains liking the real thing the best, which includes the level of sounds we hear around us. Next it should perhaps say that W8 as how it is now is "a very best" because it again urges for this setting, hence it allows us to perceive this realism.

A bit of blahblah, but please notice that I try to work a lot with these kind of things, just like the 0.9z-8 versions pushed me wild in getting any volume right, still have the sense it should be higher than I wanted because of the crazy dynamical sound. It just couldn't be done which is a base indication something is wrong, never mind I too could like many things from W8 in 0.9z-8 already.
So it could be a general measure, important to everyone ...

Thank you for your feedback guys. This is the most important.
Peter

[christoffe]

I'd encourage those of you still on W7 to take the plunge. W8 is the way forward... IMHO.

Mani.

Done. Excellent sound as per your & Juans post.

The installation was smooth without any problems, except XXH will not activate with the new code. (OS minimize is rejected by the program and no red letters)
 
W8 without any updates installed.

SPL volume is at -6dBA via a preamp and there is an exceptional holographic soundstage.

Joachim

[PeterSt]

I have no idea where we go from here. Peter has tamed the beast that is W8. Actually, he's gone even further than that. In my office system, I keep the LAN connected in order to use remote desktop (I use my work PC to control the music PC, which is just perfect for me) and to stream files across from a NAS drive in my basement, keeping the office/study free of whining HDDs and totally silent (an absolute must for me). I haven't done a lot of playing around with XX settings, but am certain that Q5 is helping to minimize any negative effects of keeping the LAN on. The sound in my office/study is simply superb (music PC -> NOS1 -> Sanders Magtech amp -> Celestion SL600 speakers... all fed off a balanced AC transformer).

Mani,

Actually for something I want for myself for conveniency reasons, I already made the code that will allow the NAS ot operate under the jurisdiction of "ALL Services Shut Off", next that anticipating the same procedure as you used before : just shutting all off once the tracks have been loaded for Unattended Playback (that only). I made the code, but never tried it so far. It should work though and at least better for SQ then when letting so many things "on" as how you do it now. Whether optimal - maybe not. But as observed, by now fewer things seem to matter anyway.

Regards,
Peter

[juanpmar]

On the volume thing ...

What I reasoned out those 3 years ago is that the level is to be of some consistency when you want to perceive the real thing. So, not too loud and also not too soft. What I by accident found is that it just needs to be at real levels...

...As said, I never thought of that anymore, nor did I feel the urge to tune in this sort of reality level, but today with W8 this is so again. And no, I didn't start to think about this because Juan said so. I found that myself which should mean ...

Well, that only if just two persons make the notice, there should be some truth in it. Thus, not for W8 best settings in general, but because there could be truth in our brains liking the real thing the best, which includes the level of sounds we hear around us.(highlighting is mine:Juan). Next it should perhaps say that W8 as how it is now is "a very best" because it again urges for this setting, hence it allows us to perceive this realism.

Peter

Very interesting Peter, I think you've managed to summarize in a few sentences what could be a psycho-acoustic treatise 

Strongly agree.

Best regards,
Juan

[Scroobius]

Hi Mani,

Interesting to note yours and others experiences with W8. I have been busy building a system for my brother (I will post about this separately) and have not yet had time to go back to W8 - but I will later this week.

I was wondering though - are you using the PCi "capacitor card" or not?

I had an interesting experience the other night when I removed the card and the sound changed - possibly for the better but I have not had time to properly evaluate it. When I was using z8 it was clear cut the PCi card sounded better now on z9b it is not so clear. Also with the new balanced amp there are other changes so just now I have lost my SQ bearings!!!!

Paul

[PeterSt]

Paul ...



If you like answers to this, please put it in its own topic.
Thank you !
Peter


PS: I feel I am on the edge with this (or your question is - maybe just towards the good side), but I guess my point is that this is not related to XXHighEnd "SQ" and you know my bias towards this not working at all for any decent tweak.

[Scroobius]

I have been very busy recently building another hifi system and I will post about that separately soon. Watch out for something of a revelation on this !!

I have therefore been very slow to get round to loading Windows 8 and try 09-z9b with it but now loaded W8 and it sounds great as others have posted. Very clear precise, dynamic and accurate sound quality. I do not use the PCi capacitor card any longer as it now spoils the SQ.

Unlike Peter I do not use high latency settings mine are low latency (see signature) - surprisingly there is not as much difference in SQ as there used to be but I would say low latency is still slightly better SQ and I do prefer the volume control to respond a bit faster.

Even though the sound quality is clear and precise there is not a hint of hardness.

Paul

[PeterSt]

A small report about something possibly others recognize (actually asking) :

Ok, I will tell you in advance that I feel that this proceeds on the volume which needs to be right. But not sure and I like people to recognize some of the below and respond if possible.


I am used to rebooting the Windows 8 system each day before playback because I feel it is necessary. Earlier on I referred to a "memory leak" which makes me think so from technical reasons. Today I can't check this easily because of using RAMdisks and some more sh*t, but because of this some more sh*t I had the idea that maybe the reboot wasn't necessary anymore. So, day before yesterday I already did not (and I never switch off PCs anyway anywhere).

No problem that I could see day before yesterday. Ok, hear.

Now, it is almost commonly known (to me through messages from a few others) that Windows 8 can sound very diffferent from day to day. No clue why, and no reboot helps for it. Must be a mind thing, or washing machines otherwise.
Yesterday I had the most sh*t sound ever.

Normally I would reboot to be sure about that to begin with, but yesterday I didn't like that, knowing about my fragile setup which possibly would require 30 minutes of wasted time to let the machine boot again. And I didn't have time for that. So I played along and got more and more annoyed.

This stupid long lead in could be useful knowledge, but whether it is related to things I don't know ...

While I yesterday decided to have an evening of Rock, I didn't play that loud, because when it is not all the best (received) it better be more soft for volume. The more albums I tried the more annoyed I got.
In the end - after saying "what's up, nothing wants to sound right today ?!!" - I said "what the heck, I'll put on some hip-hop with an in advance feel that it would be okay for the next 60 minutes. So I did, and right away with some higher volume.

See ? that was okay now. Rest.
The higher volume could now be higher though, because it just sounded right.
And higher.
And some more.

Important for the whole issue is that EACH day it occurs to me that this stupid Windows 8 needs some burning in. Needs audio to be pushed through.
People could already agree with this, no matter if I say that I don't see how this can be true. But is it really this ?

For the very first time, yesterday, the totally odd situation occurred that
a. Playback was worse as it could be at the start;
b. Playback was the very best I EVER encountered here at the end.

I really really payed attention with open mouth to ever lasting cymbals, no single sign of HD hash or whatever which could be wrong, and I heard a colour in cymbals I never heard before.
The 100% sure feeling which went along with this during these past 60 minutes was that I could actually not find a loudest volume setting to squeeze out fine dynamic hits (I am used to), until it was loud enough to perceive just that, while in the mean time normal further instruments were perfectly in balance. If anything sound was more grey than what I'm used to, but at close listening I could not find a difference with e.g. the real drums I have here.

The worst sound versus the best sound (and I am serious !) in one session without changing any setting or otherwise ? This comes across as too extreme to be true.

So or indeed something needs a strange fashion of burning in
or
Each day when I think this already I - without real notice - increase the volume which is totally normal habit.

Or both, which just allows for the volume increase (like I yesterday really didn't dare to do because of the strange poor sound).

Yesterday ended with - without real notice - we couldn't talk to eachother anymore. So only there I noticed how loud all must have been in the sneaky mean time.

Not really related to the subject, I must emphasize that at these loud levels the dynamics worked again but without any hurting, and that I very explicitly noticed that no blanketing at all was in order (read : this is a mid thing and not so much about the higher ferquencies which stayed OK at all time), BUT that the louder level in this fashion allowed cymbals to last stupidly long. Logic, when the volume can be loud, the attacks don't become crazy because of that, while the sustain is subject to the volume increase.

One last thing : This hip-hop album I must have played a 500 times throughout life, and the reason I started to pump up the volume for it was because I hardly heard bass coming from it. Then suddenly things started to work.
Yesterday I really thought to ask you all to move out the spouse and pump up the volume to levels you are not used to. And then listen.


Peter

[PeterSt]

PS:

I (again today) didn't think about this :

While Ciska here 100% agreed with me (subject to not being able to have a conversation and all), she came up with the idea that possibly it now becomes apparent that the lost bits because of too much digital attenuation (which to some extend *is* true) imply the better THD.

So, Windows 8 could be so much more accurate (well, don't we hear that) that more harmonic distortion now becomes audible ?

I felt stupid that I never thought of this ...

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

I do not experience this here, but I use a preamp for the volume and I shut everything each day (except the preamp maybe). I am too conservative I guess...

Alain

[juanpmar]

I´m out of home for a few days and I can´t experiment at this moment with super high volume, but I remember the other day that the sound was not as good as other times and I keep listening and maybe around 3 to 4 hours later the sound was great again. If this has something to do with warming up the OS or not I don´t know but I related this to warming up the system because I turn it off in the night.
About the volume level, as I said before, there is a volume that for me is the perfect one, I could define that perfect level as the one where I perceive ALL the sounds in the best possible way, and if I go up from this level the distortion is evident. At lower volumes of this perfect level the sound is good but I can´t find all the sounds (are they lost?)

Best regards,
Juan

[AlainGr]

Hi Juan,

There are so many factors that can explain the different situations when sound is either low or loud... I can only express that depending on the ambient noise and the fact that our hearing will be less sensitive to high frequencies at low volume (and other factors), it would be normal that there would be a loss of details (I think). This was in fact the reason the "Loudness" button was introduced if I am right...

Regards,

Alain

[Flecko]

While Ciska here 100% agreed with me (subject to not being able to have a conversation and all), she came up with the idea that possibly it now becomes apparent that the lost bits because of too much digital attenuation (which to some extend *is* true) imply the better THD.

My 2 cents: Getting rid of my active pre (tube) was the right thing to do. It lowered the noise floor a lot and increased the level of detail but it also sounded flatter. I thought the flatter sound was because of removing the tubes from the signal chain but I was wrong on that.
After removing my pre I bought new and much better speakers and then a very good amplifier. Both I would call, within some limitations "state of the art". Still, I was not really happy with the sound. On some day I was and on some day I was not.
Also my system sounded worse in aspects of naturalness and 3D soundstaging than less expensive and less elaborated systems. I had no peace on my mind because of that and thought: WHY? WHY is my system not totally better than these systems? I also tried some components from theses systems in direct comparison to mine. None of the components was better. There was no reasonable explaination for me, except the one thing I could point out: These system use an analoge volume control. Finally I did some experiments with analog volume control vs. digital volume control.
For example I tried a DAC with an implemeted, selected alps poti. If I turned up the poti fully and used 40db of digital attenuation. The sound got flatter and less natural. AHA!
I tried the same with another DAC and a TVC (Transformer Volume Control). Same result!
Every time I tried and made a comparison the result was the same. Even some high quality pre amps can show some advantages in 3D soundstaging and naturalness over a properly implemented digital volume control. A good thing to do, seems to have an analoge volume control directly build in the DAC and have it "buffered" to avoid high frequency cut offs.
After using a good implemented analog volume control, I do not "suffer" from day to day sound differences any more. Maybe they are there but the sound gets not so much affected by these "daily variations". It sounds good every day. But the sound is defnitly not filtered to death. I can hear better than ever differences made in the digital domain.

Greetings
Adrian

[juanpmar]

There are so many factors that can explain the different situations when sound is either low or loud... I can only express that depending on the ambient noise and the fact that our hearing will be less sensitive to high frequencies at low volume (and other factors), it would be normal that there would be a loss of details (I think).
Alain

Yes Alain, you are right, there are many factors that influence the perception of sound, some of them are external and some internal. Maybe the perceived distortion at low level volume could have to do with the loss of detail, perhaps with the loss of data but at high volume level, I mean higher of a certain level, the distortion could have to do mostly with the room acoustics.

Best regards,
Juan

[listening]

Hi Peter,

I was more than once disappointed the last days when using XXHIGHEND and tuning Windows 8 - it's good to hear that you are experiencing the same issues. I observed another phenomenon: I used a ramdisk (imdisk) actually again and found that after rebooting Windows 8 the ramdisk was visible(existing) in explorer. That was not intended! After deletig and initialiszing again the SQ was really good again. Actually the drive is not shown anymore with all the hassles you write before. Maybe there is some mixture of "clean" shut down and "buffered" shut down.

Georg

P.S.: It did not help that I've bought a Dutch Windows 8 version to squeeze out every SQ bit   

[PeterSt]

Georg,

You have mentioned a maybe very interesting one : IMDisk and its visibility;

Without realizing it, I sometimes used drive Y and Z (always visible) for XX folder and Playback Drive respectively, and sometimes used A and B which will not be visible. I can well say that since I use A and B I like the sound of Windows 8. But this went along with other changes, so no way I thought of a possible difference here (but now you know why I can't really see the actual memory usage anymore - the drives are just not visible, haha).

Anyway, not that I saw any relation with the visibility in Explorer ...
Hmm ... Maybe we now see ghosts ?

Thanks !
Peter

[AlainGr]

? Could you have an explanation about how a drive letter would alter SQ ?

Alain

[PeterSt]

Not when Explorer is out of the way like it officially is with Unattended and shut off services. But I can imagine that under the hood this "sensing" stays up. And then Yes - then this can cause many "interactions" to have the lot up to date (like you see changes in one Explorer instance while making changes in the other).
It could be an interesting (new) view.

[AlainGr]

I don't know if I have it right, but of course, when you alter the content in one window, it can affect what we see in another ?

So drives like A and B (that were "reserved" for "floppy drives") could have a quieter behavior ?

Alain

[PeterSt]

My floppy drives are completely quiet since 15 or so years.
haha.
But probably because this is not set in the BIOS something goes "odd" here. For the better perhaps.

Not sure how Georg made his IMDisk drives appear or not ...

Peter

[AlainGr]

I just tried it... It works ok, but unless I would have something odd in the BIOS (I don't recall touching anything like this, apart from attempting to slowdown the CPU) to let the A and B drives be seen or not... I see the drive that I create. I guess it should when used...

Of course, the icon that I see in the explorer window shows a drive with a "floppy". This could tell us that not much has been done about these 2 drives through time and it could in effect be a good thing.

With Windows 8, I am not always sure that the OS is booting like the previous versions... What I understand is that W8 could sometimes restart, but not up to the POST that we normally see ? This could explain the imdisk ramdrive still there ?

[Scroobius]

Last night I was listening to W8 and without doubt the sound quality was easily the best I have heard through my system to date. The sound was clear and clean in a way I have not heard before. But to complicate matters I have had other hardware problems which I appear to have fixed (I think!) at the same time as loading W8.

I have not listened to W8 for very long so cannot comment on the possible variability of the SQ with time, however, I am listening to 88db sensitivity speakers at the moment (not my usual AN's) and I would say that the sound quality is good at high volume (-9db) and low volume (-30db). At least at low volume I do not notice any particularly problems. Not sure if that helps but anyway those are my first impressions.

Best Regards

Paul

[arvind]

Hi Guys,

I moved on from W 7 to W 8 on saturday & then spent the weekend extensively listening to music. Without any shadow of doubt the SQ with  W 8 is far superior to W 7. Its clearer, bass is more true, differentiation between instruments is far better.

However I had a disturbing feeling which I want to share with you guys. Ear fatigue is more with this version as compared to the earlier ones. The music in its totality sounded marginally less musical. I just hope that in our quest for clearer sound (less distortion) we dont lose out on this important aspect.

Regards,

Arvind

[CoenP]

However I had a disturbing feeling which I want to share with you guys. Ear fatigue is more with this version as compared to the earlier ones. The music in its totality sounded marginally less musical. I just hope that in our quest for clearer sound (less distortion) we dont lose out on this important aspect.

Well,

I had this same feeling yesterday. I heard unbelievably NHB clear and realistic guitars, voices, pianos and synths and fantastic rich instrument bodies (however only at an almost uncomfortable listening level), yet the music left me cold.
Another bad sign was that I found myself very selective in the playlist material.

I revisited my report on my unease with WIN8 with a previous XX version, and I found my objections to still stand. Those are a lack of connecting of the instrument melodies and some tension/stress in the presentation making it all somewhat mechanical. Also voices are still less intelligible than I am used to.
Switching back to WIN7 with 8e immediately made these points very clear: back was the relaxed, open and dynamic sound with every note in its right place. A delight for the tired late evening mind. Yes, on the downside way less of the WIN8 "realism". A nasty trade off.....?

regards, Coen

[phantomax]

Hi Arvind and Coen,
I guess that W8 is not the culprit, well I mean not W8 per se, but some type of configuration of PC or XXHE. I tell you because I need to use headphones very often and the fatigue with them when the thing goes wrong is very evident. This was not the case with the latest versions of XXHE on W7, but with 9-z9b on W8 is even better so the only signs of fatigue are the need for sleep at 2 A.M. and beyond...

Regards

Maxi

[PeterSt]

Might it help :

[...] making it all somewhat mechanical.

I am almost sure that I never put this to the forum (but otherwise the proove is somewhere already), but this is the exact description I had my self on the path of getting Windows 8 to work - and the only reason why I said it was not there yet. From my own words it would have been : ... but the music sounds mechanical like robots produce it.

And I don't have this anymore.

Big problem is that I by now travel a path which I did not make clear so far because it will be too difficult to lay out or achieve without guidance which seems too hard to provide anyway. Also it is not completely stable I think. Lastly I can't even be sure that it is all about this. But point is : I run the OS and playback without any disk in there, a post 0.9z-9b version optimized for that - dynamically starting and stopping the LAN to load the music from. All as convenient as can be and without hassle.

Part of the "cause" will also be that I run the processor at 0.76GHz which our "XXHighEnd PC" can do and for which I also don't have a clear guide yet (so not even for customers of this PC) because all is based on OS/BIOS bugs.

When either or both of the above is the cause of getting rid of the robots, then we know it can be done. But then it can also be a kind of a wild card for anyone whether similar is already achieved by other means, or that it can't be reached at all.
So all I can say that it is theoretically possible to get out the best of all worlds, with eventually the possibility of at least partly applying what I apply myself (no disk anywhere).

Peter

[CoenP]

Those are hopefull replies!

But where to start to "fix" it.

Did I read correctly that Peter uses no drives in the pc? So no SATA connections, only USBx, even for the OS?

Do you still use the win7 Shell?

Regards, Coen

[juanpmar]

Did I read correctly that Peter uses no drives in the pc? So no SATA connections, only USBx, even for the OS?

And what about the Playback Drive?. Peter, you have in your signature a 1TB SATAIII 7200rpm but I´m not sure if you use ImDisk as Playback Drive.

Juan

[PeterSt]

Signature is old. But as more often, no real use in mentioning things in there you won't be able to apply. At least not with the longer distance to a next version which will allow for whatever it is in there.
So with my earlier post I am only trying to be careful to put my own judgement in some proper context.

Yes, IMDisk for XXHighEnd and Playback Drive. The drive for XXHighend is needed for technical reasons.
These reasons are speed related and from this I should say that everybody will have a good chance for better SQ just because of this alone. So, try it.
Put XXHighEnd in a RAMDisk (drive), and of course start it from there. XXData can stay where it is, but I copy that to the RAMDisk as well (only because I feel that this is a consistent way of working - nothing else). And remember, as a: (and b:) drive, FWIW (see posts about this elsewhere for context).

Peter

[Jud]

Yes, IMDisk for XXHighEnd and Playback Drive. The drive for XXHighend is needed for technical reasons.
These reasons are speed related and from this I should say that everybody will have a good chance for better SQ just because of this alone. So, try it.
Put XXHighEnd in a RAMDisk (drive), and of course start it from there. XXData can stay where it is, but I copy that to the RAMDisk as well (only because I feel that this is a consistent way of working - nothing else). And remember, as a: (and b:) drive, FWIW (see posts about this elsewhere for context).

Peter

I have this on my Win machine, though not as A: and B:.  And I know better than to ask this, but will anyway - So that really makes a difference, eh?

As you know I'm wanting to get -9 set up on a MacBook Boot Camp partition.  It has just 8GB of RAM, no possibility for more.  With -9 is it the same situation as before, where you will not want to take away RAM for a RAMdisk below a certain point?  Would I even want to chance making a small (how small?) RAMdisk or disks with only 8GB of RAM total?  If just one, would the drive on which XXHE resides or the playback drive be the more important one for the sound?

Edit: I should mention, a MacBook of the vintage that I have is limited to running Win 7 in Boot Camp, Win 8 is not possible.

[juanpmar]

Yes, IMDisk for XXHighEnd and Playback Drive. The drive for XXHighend is needed for technical reasons.
These reasons are speed related and from this I should say that everybody will have a good chance for better SQ just because of this alone. So, try it.
Put XXHighEnd in a RAMDisk (drive), and of course start it from there. XXData can stay where it is, but I copy that to the RAMDisk as well (only because I feel that this is a consistent way of working - nothing else). And remember, as a: (and b:) drive, FWIW (see posts about this elsewhere for context).

Peter

Peter- I´m not sure if I understand it well. In one external drive you have:

- (C:) for OS
- IMDisk (a:) for XXHighEnd and XXData
- IMDisk (b:) for Playback Drive

Is it correct?

More questions:
How do you connect that external drive? (Coen question)
Why do you talk also about RAMDisk?, isn´t it a choice between IMDisk or RAMDisk? (I know that IMDisk has more capacity).

Best regards,
Juan

[CoenP]

Juan,

De IMdisk drives are not external they are in RAM.
The corresponding files that store the data when the computer is off (and RAM empty) are most likely on an external harddrive.

You can boot the OS from a bootable usb and even from an ethernet connection afaik.

The IMDISK program seems quite simple to deploy. Let's give that a shot first.

regards, Coen

[juanpmar]

De IMdisk drives are not external they are in RAM.
The corresponding files that store the data when the computer is off (and RAM empty) are most likely on an external harddrive.

Yes, you are right, I should have expressed the previous post this way:

"I´m not sure if I understand it well. In one external drive you have:

- (C:) for OS

and also you have:

- IMDisk (a:) for XXHighEnd and XXData
- IMDisk (b:) for Playback Drive

Is it correct?".

To tell you the truth Coen, I don´t understand that configuration, maybe someone could explain it in an easy way.

Best regards,
Juan

[CoenP]

Juan,

We're going slightly off topic here. I'll give it a shot.
Just think of it as three different drives (SATA, USB, whatever). The mobo and OS do not really matter where and what they are.

With IMdisk you can create in windows an extra A:\ and B:\ disk in your memory (provided that you have enough PCmemory to spare). I just created a 3Gig IMDISK as A:\ for use as Playbackdrive. No sweat. The OS shows in (file)explorer that a new disk appeared and you can explore it with windows (nothing in there). XX now can use this disc as playbackdrive.
So you create another IM Drive B:\ (or the other way around) and install XX in there (last time a new activation was required). Note that XX can be installed in and run from (almost?) any drive.

The playbackdrive and XX are now on disks in RAM having the fastest possible read and write performance.

Of course you first have to make a bootable USB disk (flash or HDD) with WIN8 on it to get the OS out of the PC. This is somewhat tougher and trickier. If you tell the BIOS of your mobo to boot from this disk then it will automatically boot from there when you turn on the pc.

Let's first have some fun with the IMDISKS.

regards, Coen

p.s. pm me if you need help with the IMDISKS

[juanpmar]

Thanks Coen, I have used some time ago IMDisk and RAMDisk in previous configurations for Playback Drive but I always had the the OS/XXHE in an internal hdd. So what is new for me is to have the OS in a bootable external drive (and XXHE in other place different than the one where the OS is), maybe this part is the one I need to know better.

Thanks for you help

Juan

[Scroobius]

I just started using IMDisk again in W8 for XXHighEnd and for the playback drive and there is a further reduction in "edge" to the music. The sound quality is fine and for the first time I think it is clear that using a playback drive does make a difference here with IMDisk. Always in the past I have not really heard much difference using playback drive.

Paul

[arvind]

Hi Guys,

Started XXHE & Playback drive on IMDisk. There is improvement in the musical qualities of the sound, however its still not as good as 0.9z-7-5.

Q1 setting of 14 sounds better than 30 with IMDisk.

Peter, a question on the filing system of the IMDisk drives, is NTFS ok?

Regards,

Arvind

[CoenP]

Hi Arvind,

I have to agree with you, again! 

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Peter, a question on the filing system of the IMDisk drives, is NTFS ok?

Arvind, I use exFAT. I don't know whether that matters. I just use it.

Btw, my Q1 is 14 and xQ1 is 10. Maybe you forgot to tell about xQ1, because I have in my mind that I told you my settings because you aksed. But maybe it was someone else.

Regards,
Peter

[christoffe]

There is improvement in the musical qualities of the sound, however its still not as good as 0.9z-7-5.
Regards,

Arvind

XXH is very complicated with all the different settings possible. It is very easy to loose focus of the "right SQ" and therefore a reference system is mandatory. The SQ of  0.9z-7-5 was very irritating and I connected a CD player (Studer A730) to my system again. Release 0.9z-7-5 sounds with my settings dull and muffled, no sparkling of the cymbals etc.

The SQ of 0.9z-9b with W8 is meets my preferences at best.

Joachim

[arvind]

Peter, a question on the filing system of the IMDisk drives, is NTFS ok?

Arvind, I use exFAT. I don't know whether that matters. I just use it.

Btw, my Q1 is 14 and xQ1 is 10. Maybe you forgot to tell about xQ1, because I have in my mind that I told you my settings because you aksed. But maybe it was someone else.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Since default filing system is NTFS, I just left it that way. Probably does not matter.

xQ1 is 10 in my case too. Rest is same as my sig.

Regards,

Arvind