The strangest sound ever, or ? Q5= ...

[PeterSt]

Hey all,

I have been waiting to post this until I was at least sure that things are not totally wrong, but still with the clear notice that possibly you (all) may judge it as wrong after all. Maybe I'm even asking for some help on this, but actually I am quite sure ...

In the latest XXHighEnd version we have the new Q5 parameter. This is what the Release Notes tell about it :

• The former working of Q5 (see under the [ Q ] button at the bottom of the main screen) has been changed in a more explicit SQ control parameter;
It engages at values other than 0 (though 1 should be avoided) and it will imply a very subtle but therewith important SQ parameter. It does not work on its own. For that and more extensive outlay, see the ToolTip on it.

The emphasis is not in the original Release Note but for today it is about that;

So ... 1 should be avoided. But why did I allow for it then ?
Well, because it is a very special setting with a very special purpose. And, I thought it could not work. But it can ...

Throughout time, and for me this was earlier than 0.9z-9 was release to you, I tried it a couple of times. My perception was always the same and looked like a "huh ? what !?".
But I never could proceed on it because playback would stop within the minute. Well, *that* was teasing. Seems to sound to good, but before you could really concentrate the sound stopped all together.

The sound

I wish I knew how to describe it;
Something very strange is going on and it is in the realm of super coherence or something. Let me call it a 3 dimensional blending with maybe the 3rd dimension to make up, but I mean "from all angles". First there's a blending which is related to good old still strange Left/Right behavior of Windows 8 (so yes, this is about Windows 8 only) and next and more profound there is a blending in the transients. I think I can say that the transients at the higher level blend into a foundation for those transients.
With the "higher level" I mean not the finest details (like ultra short spikes) but how e.g. a snare drum is hit and how that now is surrounded with a means of envelope in the attack.

This was the technical description.
For "functionality" I'd say that all sounds sooooooo normal and not emphasized that I actually don't know what is happening;
Yesterday it came to me that I would write about "if *that* is not analogue than I don't know anymore" with the immediate addition "but analogue would sound less detailed".

There is also a most strange thing happening, which I could predict from former experiences on how certain recordings can change counter intuitive. The Beatles is such an example and in the more past I often referred to it. I don't know why, but something is in these Beatles recordings which can make them go from the worst 60's to the best 90's (I skip 2000 to not overdo it). Not that this is about The Beatles, but it could be recognizable for you;

No, I am talking about recordings which actualy lack highs and of which at leat I myself never can explain much why. It is easy to blame the recording, but such a recording being in the middle of others of the same time and even artist, those being ok, why.
Sorry for the stupid example, but Machine Head of Deep Purple is such a recording. No highs. But when you listen to this Q5=1 sound then in other recordings you feel that Machine Head is going to work. It is like the sampling rate has increased so much that all the highest frequency are suddenly not missed. And yes, now writing this I would dedicate the same to those higher level transients now having foundation; all the steps needed to get there (at the level) go in small steps, while otherwise it was a one-go.

I often talk about Get Yer Ya Ya's Out (Stones) because that too is such an intrigueing album which originally sounds sull and flat, while all guts tell me it can be better. And yes, it improved so much over time. But now listen to it. It went from still-somehat-flat to the most fresh and "uptodate" cymbals. Guitars have "scratch" while previously they had sound. All changed. All.

People might concentrate on "timing" (when you are good at this) because I feel that something odd may be going on there. But I can not tell it is for the better or for the worse.

How to get this going

Well, that could be a most tough thing for everybody. At least it took me months (of throughput time) to find out and all is so critical that it may not work for you.

Notice of some importance : My PC runs at 360MHz per processor core (x12). This is super low and still it works. This, while it can be regarded a crucial factor (the speed) which in the end I did NOT recognize as such. Nor could I get it going with any of the other Settings which I myself regard related. But this is the thing :

Reboot your PC and start playing.

Here, I can play for hours (infinitely ?) by means of only that.
Reboot and maybe play a little so the memory is allocated and such, stop playing and leave the PC alone for even 30 minutes does NOT work.

Because at first I tried other means (through XXHighEnd Settings) I accidentally ended up with these possibly important factors (I don't want to change settings anymore at this time) :

Q1 = 14
xQ1 = 1
Device Buffer Size = 4096
Driver Control Panel (NOS1) : 16ms
Clock Resolution = 0.5
Q5 = 1
SFS = 2 ( Max SFS = 8 )
Thread Priority = High (thus not Real Time)
Processor Appointment Scheme = 3
XTweaks (from top to bottom) : 53, 100, 1, 1, 1, Stable, Optimal
Show Wallpaper = Off
Edit : Logging = Off
Edit : Better not use this in combination with Phase Alignment (sound stopping may cause large thumps).

Notice that the SFS=2 can imply a stop right at the start anyway (after 1-2 seconds), which is not related to the possible issue of stopping with Q5=1. If you encounter a stop so quickly, just try again or trying another track may help as well. If this remains (stop within 1-2 secs) try SFS=4.

When it works "quite ok" you will notice because music keeps on playing forever BUT as soon as you do something like Alt-u music stops. Or Alt-z (put in Demo Gallery) - same.
When it works 100% you will notice that things like Alt-u work as well and when this is so you have a nice headroom when not using these (hammering) commands.

When it does NOT work, you will notice this because of sound stopping randomly between say 10 seconds and 5 minutes, but with the for this recognizable "Data did not arrive in time". Well, this latter I hope because in my version I changed a few things (not due to this) and you might not receive this message right away or it may even happen that sound interrupts all the time (with the version I have here it definitely stops and with this message showing right away).

Because of the internal "construction" of Q5=1 you will be able to notice one small buffer repeat (of something like 0.2 secs) when Alt-u/Alt-d is used.

Prerequisites

I did not test this all, but since I know how critical it is, this will apply :

- Minimized OS (thus Activated XXHighEnd);
- Unattended Playback;
- XXHighEnd in RAMDisk;
- Playback Drive in RAMDisk.

And because of the (for me) non-intuitive behavior, when you can't get it going, try mentioned XTweaks first "53" to vary between 42, 43, and something like 90 (so, 3 different values only).

Is there anyone who can get this going ?
And if so, what do you think about the sound ?
(please report here and not through email etc.)

Regards and have fun,
Peter

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

I like this... There is a fine blend of analogue finally happening in my system. I can't tell where this is changing, but the annoying effect around the voices that I have been hearing for a while (I never could tell what started this and what I did to hear that) is almost gone or at least there are moments I don't detect it anymore. But now I suspect that this has turned into an obsession for me, so there is some kind of "bad" expectations bias that I have to get rid of...

Yes I like this.

No interruption for the moment, but I have yet to let it play for a while. Except for the dreaded RDC I use (don't tell me please, I know...), I use 9d with the music drive connected through network. I am even self confident I could plug back my supertweeters, even the subs just to add some "weight" to the music...

Could it be that your processor is too low ? I can't go under 1.2mhz. You could maybe adjust it a little faster ? You know, this is not a locomotive diesel engine

I am trying "Real Time" out of curiosity. Still no interruption. As for the rest, I am following your adjustments.

Hey, thanks for your dedicated patience. I knew you were on to something, since you were too silent recently. A Peter not writing is always worrying

Regards,

Alain

[manisandher]

Hey Peter, on Nick's suggestion I've been trying PA(+) with strength=1 for the last few weeks and I really like the 'in-the-room' affect it has on the sound.

Do you know if Q5=1 (and the other settings) would be compatible with my PA settings? Of course I can try this for myself (and wouldn't hesitate if I had a preamp in place), but would rather hear back from you first if you think there may be some adverse effects.

Cheers, Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani,

Q5 is totally unrelated to PA. One exception :

I would never use PA with the combination of Q5=1 because the stops most probably will not be convered for by the PA "fade out". Thus, the fameous large thump may be your share.
I will adjust my original post with this advice.

Regards,
Peter

[acg]

Hi Peter,

Initial impressions are very good.  I've only had it going for half an hour but I do like it so far.  I will put plenty of hours with these settings before I give my full report...but I'm loving the 'togetherness' that I am hearing, but I don't know whether that is the settings or the fact that it is raining right now and everything sounds better when it rains (at least it does over here in Australia where it tends not to rain for long periods - the blue skies and sunshine get monotonous after a while hehehe).

Cheers,

Anthony 

[acg]

Hi Peter,

I have some issues.  Hopefully they are easy to fix.

As I played more music this morning I noticed some small clicks and pops coming from one particular classical track.  I replayed the first minute or so of this track several times and the clicks and pops were irregular, random, they happened at varying frequency and in varying spots in the soundstage (this audio gear is mad...I could point to where the pops were happening).  Anyway, I re-read your first post here and I tried playing with every changed setting (only one at a time) and could not get the pops to go away on this track, so it was time to think outside of these changes to see if I could pick up another pattern.

Here is what I found...the sample rate determines whether a track is going to have pops and clicks.  I went through much of my hi-res collection and played the start of one track from each single album, noted the sample rate, and in "attended mode) I kept track of the "Kernal Streaming / WASAPI (WDM) Error Count" in the "Phasure USB Control Panel".  The only errors that occurred where in that box.  Below is a summary of my findings...

Sample Rate	Result	# of Albums
16/44	Good	lots
16/48	clicks	1
24/44.1	Good	2
24/48	clicks	1
24/88.2	Good	2
24/96	clicks	5
24/176.4	Good	3
24/192	clicks	6
24/352.8	Good	2

Can you make any sense of this Peter?  Mathematically, I would say that the best correlation for the sample rates that produce clicks and pops is when the sample rate is neatly divisible by the bitrate eg. 48/24 = 2 or 192/24 = 8 or 96/24 = 4.  Is it that straight forward?

Regards,

Anthony

EDIT:  Thanks to Alain (and his post below) I have added the 16/48 sample rate to the table above.  Definitely have problems with sample rates that are a multiple of 48 with these new settings.

[AlainGr]

Hi Anthony, I can't help on this, but you probably noted that this seems to happen with multiples of 48... Do you have a 16/48 DVD ? I could even send you a song that has this bitrate ? If so, PM me with your email address (filemail)...

Regards,

Alain

[PeterSt]

Anthony, is this only happening with Q5=1 - IOW you never heard this before ?
Peter

[acg]

I've never heard this before, not once.

BTW, I'm loving the sound so far.

[acg]

Peter, I should point out which settings were changed to get to these new settings...

xQ1 from 10 to 1
Q5 from 5 to 1
SFS from 20 max 20 to 2 max 8
Thread Priority from Realtime to High
Processor Appointment Scheme from 4 to 3
Xtweaks from 45/100/1/1/1 to 53/100/1/1/1

I have tried changing these settings individually back to their originals but I have not tried setting more than one of these back to their originals at the same time.

Also, I have the 8-core Xeon processor and not the 6-core i7.  Likewise, I am using the PPAstudio USB3 card.

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Anthony, your sig says "Asus" X79 etc ...
That would be ASRock, right ?

[Stanray]

I tried the suggested settings last night and all is working flawlessly.
SQ really is superb. Flowing, balanced, yet detailed. Very “present” and lively I would say.

However, there is also a strange imbalance in that the soundstage seems to be shifted a bit to one side. I get the impression that the stage is a bit more to the left side, especially noticeable in the hf. This is remarkable because before I always heard a slight shift to the right.

Maybe this sounds strange and I will do some more listening asap

Regards,
Stanley

[PeterSt]

Anthony, thank you for your clarifications.

How easy will it be to observe these clicks ? I mean, do I have a chance that I miss them ? Does it need more silent music (piano perhaps) ?

In the mean time I wonder whether you can observe the interval of the clicks changing with the SFS changing. I am afraid you won't have much headroom though (the larger the SFS the less chance it will work at all). And of course it requires a fast interval to observe in the first place (I think SFS=2 implies track part loads of 3x per second. SFS=6 simply triples that to once per second - just watch your CPU graph).

Peter

[PeterSt]

Maybe this sounds strange and I will do some more listening asap

Stanley, no, I don't think this is a strange observation at all. Mind the title of the topic ...
Please go ahead with it because possibly I am seeking what actually is wrong or strange. Maybe nothing but maybe it needs pointers like yours to hear it.

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

...but I'm loving the 'togetherness' that I am hearing

Just saying ... This would have been my description but I thought it would not be decent English. At least I would have put it in between quotes as well ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

For Stanley, but also to others :

If it would be true that with this the balance between left and right can change, I dare (softly) say that it is another testimonial of samples being able to get skipped or lost.

Of course now I am again the conspiracy thinker but I have been thinking this forever. It is only that I can't find the technical proof of it, with for example digitally looping back and observing bit perfectness. But then digitally looping back is not exactly the same as putting all through to the (beginning of) the D/A converter. But I don't know other/better means.

And *if* this were true it would
- clarify how I myself have been puzzled how such huge changes ever can be still bit perfect (this is one of them);
- far batter explain how software can influence SQ which is supposed to happen in-DAC only;
- which then is not true anymore of course. Instead it's just "manipulation" in the PC;
- explain how in the world that Left/Right behavior in W8 can be so way different than in e.g. W7.

So, what's up really ?

Peter

[PeterSt]

What Q5=1 does is causing "intervention" by other OS processes to be completely impossible. Well, if I have done this job right. So what I am supposing is that samples may get lost when other processes interfere. And notice that in itself a sample getting lost is inaudible, but general SQ will change. For that see my first post about the "resolution" to transients and what it could imply.

May I also refer to the large W8 topic ("My first Windows 8 Experience") where at some stage I suggested that the samples for left and right were not pushed out "together" (a chunk of them for left, then a chunk of them for right) which is how the Left/Right experience could emerge.

Supposed we all start to feel that this is the way to go ... I think I can improve on it. So, no other OS processes interfere ... but one : the track part loading (which is a continuous process at SFS=2 levels). Thus, the Audio Engine actually interferes with itself. I think I can move that out of the way ...

Peter

[acg]

Anthony, your sig says "Asus" X79 etc ...
That would be ASRock, right ?

You got me there...I will ammend my sig.

[acg]

Anthony, thank you for your clarifications.

How easy will it be to observe these clicks ? I mean, do I have a chance that I miss them ? Does it need more silent music (piano perhaps) ?

In the mean time I wonder whether you can observe the interval of the clicks changing with the SFS changing. I am afraid you won't have much headroom though (the larger the SFS the less chance it will work at all). And of course it requires a fast interval to observe in the first place (I think SFS=2 implies track part loads of 3x per second. SFS=6 simply triples that to once per second - just watch your CPU graph).

Peter

Peter, the clicks are quite easy to hear and vary in size from barely audible to a little pop like vinyl to a temporary almost complete silence where a lot of data is lost.  Looking at the Phasure Driver Control Panel the errors show up about a second or so after the irregularity is heard.  The individual errors vary in size from 1 to about 1200.

I will look at the SFS stuff later on.

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Anthony, what happens when you upsample to 384 instead of 768 ? I think this will do it !
Watch those FiFo errors ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

Btw, I forgot to mention one other required setting : Logging must be Off.
I added it to the original post.

[PeterSt]

Anthony,

I tried a few things a/w changing something to the Appointment Schemes so I can "see" better ...

First of all, at least with 4ms in the NOS1 Driver Control Panel - no dice. Errors all over (all sorts except ASIO of course).

Secondly, with 16ms in there, no problems with 44.1 based.

Thirdly, with 48 based and 768 output, errors. But in my case merely WASAPI/WDM errors than FiFo errors.

Lastly, with 48 based and 384 output, no errors anywhere ever.

And because of my changes to the Schemes I can nicely see how it is caused. Maybe it is solvable for 48 based and 768 output, but what should be solvable for sure is the stopping when the PC was out of use for too long. I think I have that already working largely.

Something else is that with Attended playback is just interrupted when Q5=1 doesn't work well. So, does not stop.


Summarized :
24/768 has always been very critical for the NOS1 and I think I just learnt that something in the OS is actually causing it to easily fail. It will be (critical) driver related and in the end is caused by "me" hogging too much; just that tad too much for 24/768.
This is my conclusion because the buffer size in the Driver Control Panel being low(er) also doesn't work; how this is a "similar thing" is a bit complicated, but it is. Think like the response at 4ms must be 4 times faster than 16ms, but things are hogged to long to service that.

Q5=1 *is* a super trick in the first place, me thinking that it never could work, but now I know it can. It already does, but for example I have now seen how it can work with the higher SFSes just the same.

Regards,
Peter

[listening]

Peter,

I have to increase processor clock to 1.1 GHz - so hopefully I do not compare apple and oranges. First impressions with the system here:

- Music is quieter with the same XXHE volume position
- The first 5 minutes of the listening I was missing dynamics
- After 20 minutes of listening  - the stage is backwards greater, instruments are moving backwards too and sounding a bit quieter, what should be the right thing.
- There is additional "space" between "sound fragments" - if listening to a tabla I can better distinguish between the fingers drumming or the swing out of sitar tones is clearly heard even when new strings are plucked.
- All with naturalness and without superficiality

Georg

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

While I cannot pretend I hear something odd happening, I suppose that if your processor frequency is very low and that errors are happening when some interruption is induced, maybe you should adjust the frequency to be a little higher ? Provided that an i7 is tuned to work normally at 3.2ghz, it provides a lot of headroom for reduced speed, but the "sweet spot" could be somewhere between what you have achieved and the nominal frequency ? Just a suggestion of course and without any pretention, as a few things are completely over my head...

Alain

[PeterSt]

For those who can't get this going (for a longer time) without stops or interrupts, this is solved for the next version (beyond 0.9z-9b).

The issue with FiFo (etc.) errors for 48KHz based tracks is also solved (quite unexpectedly actually).

Peter

[acg]

Anthony, what happens when you upsample to 384 instead of 768 ? I think this will do it !
Watch those FiFo errors ...

Peter

I did this test Peter and all errors are gone.  Note that I never had FIFO errors, only KS/WDM errors.

Anthony

[acg]

For those who can't get this going (for a longer time) without stops or interrupts, this is solved for the next version (beyond 0.9z-9b).

The issue with FiFo (etc.) errors for 48KHz based tracks is also solved (quite unexpectedly actually).

Peter

Good news Peter.  I love these new settings and I love my 48 based music as well so it would be nice if they could be used together.  When is the new version due?

Regards,

Anthony

[Nick]

Hi,

Iv been trying the Q5 setting this week. In terms of sound quality I agree with what has been said above, there is a beautifully analogue presentation without harshness and edge. Here I do also find that there is a slight drop in pace and drive in the music (I feel the need to use a more forward set of interconnects than the ones usually used to compensate). It might be that I am getting used to the new Q5 setting but I think that transients do not have quite the same weight which results in a slight loss of presence and engagement with the sound. Overall though its a big step forwards.

What has been fascinating is that I have the feeling I have heard almost the same change in sound characteristics before. I think the change is very similar in character to that experienced from changing the 24mhz USB clocks and applying bypassing caps on the NOS1 USB board.

Regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Yes Nick. And you will find it very hard to believe I think, but somehow I expected it to be very similar. This is only (small) partly from your descriptions but I'm merely thinking about what this actually causes and how it could be dealt with by electrical means. And to be honest I was really waiting for your judgement on this, so thanks for trying it and the feedback of course.

In the mean time I have been working myself on exactly those possibly just too much lack of transients but maybe this is too hard to explain once again. But let's say that the "blending" ("from all angles") I talked about earlier, also exhibits a "towards more grey" for the worse. And of course we don't like that.

Not to miss (for the below interpretation) : I most probably have changed more (code) than you out there can copy for the same behavior which I think contributes not only to the better "integration" again, but also made the downsides worse. To counter attack that (and this may work for you out there just in the same (good !) direction), I did this after 90 minutes of trying to find settings :

Set Q1 to 6 so SFS can be 0.8.
WARNING : As far as I can recall Q1 can not be 6 (at xQ1=1 and DevBufSize=4096) but now this works. So, not sure at all whether you can do this without ticks (different ticks, just caused by a too low buffer size and btw talking about the NOS1).

What happens with this is crazy;
All the grey turns into bells and tinkles and the IMO right rendition of all which is "highs". Metal is beautifully metal and the same transients we talk about work out to just against the threshold of "too much". So, all just good.


Meanwhile I am almost sure that the protection of SFS being very low at a too high Q1 (you will see the messages when Unattended is attempted) is unjustified because in Attended they just work and the protection should be about Phase Alignment which I am not using. IOW : More is to be achieved if I only remove that protection.
If that is out an SFS=0.2 will work just the same (in Attended it already does) with my now new goal of ... well I won't tell yet. But the approach is quite different from all the years before and it could "justify" how the lower SFS can work out for the better while I said a 100 times at least it should not but agree that it does.
So, to be continued.

Peter

[Arjan]

Hi Peter,
Yes, this is much better, the SF=0.8 does the trick! All details are back!
I was already on Q1=6 and SFS=1.2 and that was an improvement. In the past going below 1.2 was not possible for me so did not try that.
My clock resolution is on 5ms. I can not have 0.5ms, it sound compressed.

I can say that the SQ has never been so good!

[PeterSt]

Thank you very much Arjan. I mean, I am the most glad that again someone not using a NOS1 responds. And obviously it means that it should be a general improvement for hopefully everybody.

Something else ...
I think I referred to strange "The Beatles" behavior earlier in the topic (first post ?) but I now found another which never (really never) worked with computer playback : The Friends or Mr Cairo (Vangelis); finally this isn't that strange "highs only" album. It still is not the very best but at least it is now playable (enough fundament in all) and ready for further improvement.
Never give up ...

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Something else you might notice (it jumps to me each time) :

Roffles;
How the individual hits/bounces are suddenly so recognizable.
Same (of course) for the very fast changes of toms hits.

Notice that this does NOT concurs with blending hence a sort of smearing and actually should imply more dryness. So, strange.
The "higher resolution" remains ...

[PeterSt]

How the individual hits/bounces are suddenly so recognizable.

... which is why I am just playing In-A-Gadda-Da-Vidda (yup, that's how I am) ...
Also a too light-weight album in general (in digital);

And I now notice how it works :
The hits on toms carry the "metal" (read : more high frequency) it needs to make toms come forward better.
Notice that I compare with real-life drums.

It is and remains all counter-intuitive, because how can more highs imply less light weighted ?
More blahblah on this when I think I know ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

I love these new settings and I love my 48 based music as well so it would be nice if they could be used together.  When is the new version due?

Anthony,

As soon as possible because I like you all to have it.
But I'm afraid writing the Release Notes will consume a day or 3 to begin with. So yes, more things have been changed in this relative long time period since the last version.

Regards,
Peter

[pedal]

Hi guys,
I just did a short listening with these new settings.

But first:My previous settings (see signature) is the best SQ until now. The bass is so forceful and "solid" that it makes my linesource speakers sound like a big horn system. This comes through as something positive on all kinds of music. The "downside" is a slightly anonymous treble. But the treble doesn't annoy me at all.

However when trying Q5=1 settings, the treble blossoms and becomes more interesting and musically satisfying. Unfortunately the bass loses some of its power and rhythmic. Turning up a couple dBs helps.

Still I feel that my signature settings better communicate the fundamentals of the music. I don't know if I am willing to sacrifice this...

It's almost like choosing between a horn system and electrostatic loudspeakers.

Anyway, this was just initial impression after 1 hour listening. :-)

[acg]

Set Q1 to 6 so SFS can be 0.8.
WARNING : As far as I can recall Q1 can not be 6 (at xQ1=1 and DevBufSize=4096) but now this works. So, not sure at all whether you can do this without ticks (different ticks, just caused by a too low buffer size and btw talking about the NOS1).

Hi Peter,

These settings do not work well with my version of XXHE.  I have to turn the upsampling down to 4x to not get KS/WDM errors on Redbook.

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Anthony,

If it is important for you, switch off Hyperthreading and engage Scheme-2. This can help because of the bug in there with more than 8 cores.

Peter

[boleary]

Well, I'm a bit puzzled. When I first heard the Q5 @ 1 setting it was encouraging. The soundstage felt "right:" Iwas listening to a movement  (Track 8)from a Mozart string Quartet and all the instruments were well placed and defined in space. Unlike with my usual settings the center was not overwhelmed by the far left and right sounds; rather the instruments in the center could be both heard and felt. With my Q5 @ 3 settings the center disappears somewhat. So I then A-B'ed what has become one of my reference tracks, Track 10 from Gianluigi Trevese's Midsummer Night Dream album and I had the opposite experience. With Q5 @ 1 the soundstage basically collapsed and the large wall of sound of a live music experience disappeared. There is no way I'd pick that sound over my Q5 @ 3 setting. Here's a link to the tracks:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdbhcpx4ii8qvzk/08%20Grumiaux%20Trio%2C%20Arpad%20Gerecz%20%26%20Max%20Lesueur%20-%20String%20Quintet%20No.4%20in%20C%20minor%2C%20K406%28516b%29%20-%204.%20Allegro.wav

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwf9kg82ww0ceuo/10%20Adagietto%20Bergomasco.wav

[boleary]

Peter, I hope its okay to post the links above. If not delete! Also for the classical track, what I described can be heard in the first minute.

[PeterSt]

Iwas listening to a movement  (Track 8)from a Mozart string Quartet

Yeah, something must be seriously wrong when a trio plays a quartet. At least that's what the track name tells (a trio).
haha

[boleary]

Yikes! I'm certain it was a quartet, maybe EAC name is wrong. ANyway, hope you can replicate what I heard, or what I thought I heard! 

[PeterSt]

Brian, that 08 track sounds OK but is not my style much and maybe it sounds somewhat flat here; the 10 track is great stuff and sounds superb. I wonder who those crazies are ?
I did not A-B.

[boleary]

Thanks Peter. I gave it a listen again last night and  Q1 soundstage was much better! Not sure what happened when I first tried, though it still does have a loss in dynamics or punch compared to my usual settings. I then changed the clock res to 5, not .5, and the dynamics were back but every once in a while there's about a 3 second break in the music. The settings I have been using prior to Q1 @ 1, etc. were Q1@3, SFS 4, Clock res 15, thread priority @ Real Time. These settings seemed best with the GainClone, but they turned out to be great with the tube amp too. They too are worth a listen, IMHO.

You can read about track 10 here:
 http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2335.0

[PeterSt]

Aha ! So my expression "crazy" wasn't that bad eh ?
But I really meant to say that it was unbelievable how such an at first classical piece could turn into a more "heavy" thing. Really intelligently done !

Q1=3 ? that seems impossible to me. Yes, with xQ1 at > 1.

About the stops : you too can try to set Hyperthreading off so you have 6 cores only (> 8 core bug) and use Appointments Scheme-2. Next try to set SFS at 0.8 as per my couple of posts back.

And otherwise please wait for the new version; all works well in there now.

Regards,
Peter

[boleary]

Q1=3 ? that seems impossible to me. Yes, with xQ1 at > 1.

Well, my xQ1 is at 1 and it does work, except for that skip.

[CoenP]

Since this "discovery" of Q5 =1 with low Q1 and very low SFS i've had some excellent windows 8 listening sessions.

On some instruments I percieve a slight loss of dynamics (like on the piano) while this is not reflected in the presentation of the "big picture". Music is communicated and the soundstage has more width than I ever heard on this OS. Instruments and voices are less dense than before, more like win7, but different. Best thing is that it sounds very natural and fares well with all kinds of music.

Time to leave win7? Well, win7 has still the edge on the emotional connection and "wholeness", though the latter may just be due to less fuzzyness in win8.

Regards, Coen

[pedal]

Hi guys, I just did a short listening with these new settings.

But first: My previous settings (see signature) is the best SQ until now. The bass is so forceful and "solid" that it makes my line source speakers sound like a big horn system. This comes through as something positive on all kinds of music. The "downside" is a slightly anonymous treble. But the treble doesn't annoy me at all.

However when trying Q5=1 settings, the treble blossoms and becomes more interesting and musically satisfying. Unfortunately the bass loses some of its power and rhythmic. Turning up a couple dBs helps.

Still I feel that my signature settings better communicate the fundamentals of the music. I don't know if I am willing to sacrifice this... It's almost like choosing between a horn system and electrostatic loudspeakers.

Anyway, this was just initial impression after 1 hour listening. :-)

TRUE STORY
A tear ran down his cheek. Yesterday, a visitor heard my system for the first time. The first track I played was Johnny Cash, First Time Ever I Saw Your Face (American 4). He was so overwhelmed that he could not control his emotions.

I was moved too. Turning up the volume to about 100dB there was an all-time high “presence” and closeness to the music. We were glued to the sofa for 3 hours. Then a quick meal and another 3 hours of music. It was like being drugged. I couldn’t stop listening, I had to pull out another song and another song, and another…

Shortly put, the new Q5=1 settings are by far the best sounding version. It elevates my system to a higher level.

When evaluating Hi-Fi we rank what we hear relatively to our references. Today, with the SQ of the Q5=1 settings under my skin, my impression of previous Q5=5 settings (see signature) must be modified. The Q5=5 now sounds like a “one-trick pony”. The bass is truly awesome and forceful, but the rest is too anonymous.

The Q5=1 settings is a game changer. It removes a layer of noise from all frequencies, revealing a new layer of recorded details previously hidden beneath the dirt. It makes 16bit CD sound like 24bit. I hear more recorded space (acoustics). Sound is more fluid, more analogue, more natural. Micro dynamics are better. Macro dynamics are impressive too, if you crank up the level some dB’s.
Eva Cassidy’s albums are very well recorded, but always had a slight hard edge when she push her voice in the loud passages. This is removed (resolved) now. I can play these songs +5dB without any annoyance. Same with Eric Clapton, Old Love (Unplugged). A previous layer of “haze” is removed from his voice.

Moving from Q5=5 to Q5=1 settings are like having sex without condom. No latex between the fleshes!

We really had a thrill yesterday listening to old favorites:
Elvis stepped down from the skies, performing Crying In The Chapel (2496) in front of us.   
Hans Theessink, Build For Comfort (Live with The Blue Grooves) was simply amazing. The tuba rattled my room. Maybe the most realistic blues recording I have heard. (I have played it regularly since I saw him in concert in the 90s, but never realized the potential SQ which now is heard as reference quality).
Miles Davis, You’re My Everything (Relaxin 2496) was a time machine. The muted trumpet incredible present.

The new settings make for treasure hunting among old music. Taming hard edges and resolving new levels of recorded details makes even poor recordings sound surprisingly good.

(Reducing upsampling to x8 helps, but still there are a few dropouts. Looking forward to the update).

------------------

The Q5=1 settings is the final nail in my vinyl coffin. The last few years I have planned setting up a turntable. I even purchased an expensive RIAA. But after last night’s session there is no going back. Digital playback is my new absolute reference, thanks to XX/NOS1 DAC. The new settings remove the final layer of digital/electronic signature. From now on the SQ is limited to each and everyone’s system.   

Peter, THIS IS IT! If you ever thought about moving out of Beta-mode and into v1.0 this must be the moment.

 

[PeterSt]

pedal,

Thank you for such a great post. Of course I loved reading it.

By now I have one addition to the conspiracy theory of somehow samples being missed otherwise (no Q5=1) I talked about earlier :
By accident I played a 24/96 while trying something, just sitting on the floor; I noticed a sound not heard before and immediately thought "what ? is this digging out those higher frequencies, or what ?".
Of course out of all I shouldn't be telling *you*. But I do because I noticed it and still want to be honest.
I never really tried to listen to HiRes since, afraid that the conspiracy theory is true. Yep, that's me too.

Anyway, I don't see the Q5=1 disappearing anymore and am working on the last bits of annoyances, like (with my version now) touching a key on the keyboard already interrupts the sound. This by itself tells me other things, so I want to sort them out (and the version you all have out there won't interrupt the sound by that).

Regards and thanks again,
Peter

[PeterSt]

PS: SFS = 0.2 here (see sig); not sure whether that can work in your version.

[nik.d]

PS: SFS = 0.2 here (see sig); not sure whether that can work in your version.

Peter,
Are you saying you manage SFS=0.2 with Q1=14 ?

[PeterSt]

George, yes. But I changed a few things. High SFS is also possible (tried up to 120 anyway).
In your version it is as it is for now.

Peter

[Arjan]

Hi,
Just info. The lowest I can get is SFS=0.6 and q1=4. With SFS=0.2 and q1=1 there is no sound. In between random skipping sound.
Arjan

[boleary]

With Q1 at 14 Iv'e been listening with SFS of .2, but to get there  I have to reduce upsampling to 2x or 4x. Seems I have to fiddle around  between the two upsample values to get the skipping to stop. When it does stop at the 4x value the sound is wildly balanced and clear; it makes vocals with my gainclone almost identical to the sound with my tube amp. Hopefully Peter will get things sorted out so we can hear SFS of .2 with 16x upsampling!

[PeterSt]

May it help : By now I use Q1=6. Possibly now it is easier to achieve ? (here all works anyway)

[manisandher]

Hi y'all. I finally got a chance to try Q5=1 with the other settings suggested in this thread. Nice.

But I have an issue here. I think I've become addicted to Phase Alignment (+) again, with strength = 0. PA just transforms the sound in my system. Everything snaps into place. The top-end becomes super, super sweet. There is a perceived loss of bottom end, but I suspect this is due to less bloat than a lack of real extension.

I like the new settings in this thread, but I can't quite wean myself away from PA(+).

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani,

Without reading back I'm sure I advised to not use Phase Alignment, but at this moment this should only be about stops which may be unavoidable, which should be out of the way in the upcoming version. If you don't receive these stops (and thus also no tumps with PA) you can just use PA. If you are not sure you can always try at the lower volume (tumps being note severe).

Best regards,
Peter

[Scroobius]

I avoided trying these settings because so much else has changed in my system I wanted to let everything settle, get familiar with the sound and establish a "baseline" again. So now I have tried Q5=1 but the results were not what I was expecting.

The first thing to mention is that my PC struggles with Q5=1 with "stops and jumps". More in hope than expectation I put in some more memory (i.e. 24Gb rather than the normal 12Gb). I was surprised that this actually reduced the problem significantly.

This test was with 2 Dexa clocks which makes the sound very clear well defined and dynamic. I found that changing Q5=1 seemed to "smudge" the sound so some of the clarity was lost it also sounded to be a little constricted. I increased SFS to 4 and higher and found that the upper mid sounded odd maybe nasally the only word I can think of.

So not what I was expecting at this stage.

Mmmmm it always concerns me when I am "out on a limb" (or not getting the same results as everyone else) but for sure I would not chose Q5=1 here to listen to music with as it loses all its magic. It would be interesting to hear what Nick finds in his system with 2 Dexa's.

So Nick?

Cheers

Paul

[Nick]

Paul hi,

I'v been playing with "long latency" settings again because these a sort of known quantities (in give exceptionally good sound here) whilst trying other tuning stuff out.

I'll have another try with q5=1 again and post back.

Cheers,

Nick.