2.10 sound quality

[Robert]

Yes 5.19 sfs is better than 20.19 in this latest XXh version. All running perfectly.   

[juanpmar]

Hi Peter, the first impression is that the sound with v2.10 is excellent. Can you tell me please if you have your signature updated?
With SFS 5.19 are you using Custom Filter (which one?) or Arc Prediction?

Best regards,
Juan

[Robert]

2.10 is sounding very nice. My settings in signature are current. I prefer Arc prediction over custom filters.
I've switched garbage collection back on and it sure does improve the sound. Nice work Peter, thanks.

[Telstar]

Nevermind, i got it.
Will upgrade to 2.10 tomorrow

[PeterSt]

Can you tell me please if you have your signature updated?
With SFS 5.19 are you using Custom Filter (which one?) or Arc Prediction?

Hi Juan,

I now updated my signature. The items surrounded by * are the changed ones since last time.
Among them the Balanced Load of 42 which I just found like that minutes ago and I must be using that for many weeks by now, although I can't really remember the merits of it. It is so anyway and I like the sound very much (in consistency with the other settings), so I let it be.

Filtering is just Arc Prediction again and I am quite confident that the lower 5.19 allows for this "permanently" (sound is more smooth because of it and with Arc Prediction it gets the necessary snap again).

Best regards,
Peter

[hudesigns]

Hi Peter,
I remember you mentioned once that when playing MQA albums, xxhe volume needs to stay at -0dB. Is it still true under 2.10?
Best,
Zheng

[Stanray]

I now updated my signature. The items surrounded by * are the changed ones since last time.
Among them the Balanced Load of 42 which I just found like that minutes ago and I must be using that for many weeks by now, although I can't really remember the merits of it. It is so anyway and I like the sound very much (in consistency with the other settings), so I let it be.

Peter

Hi Peter,

When I set the Balanced Load (just trying settings), the result is (-). All other settings can be set, except "42".

I left it at at "43" and that's OK, but I'm curious why "42" can't be set.

Regards,
Stanley

[PeterSt]

Among them the Balanced Load of 42 which I just found like that minutes ago and I must be using that for many weeks by now, although I can't really remember the merits of it.

No ! I am wrong here !!
By now I can't even tell how and where I looked, but I have it at 52.
I suppose looking after 3 hours of sleep and a party last night, isn't the best idea. But I caught up sleep a bit and now I thus see 52.

When I set the Balanced Load (just trying settings), the result is (-).

Thank you Stanley ! (although I just noticed myself while working on an other PC and then checked by own).

Btw, I am sure I was also influenced by the fact that since 14393.0 we also can go *under* the 42 with effect. So I recall that in some XXHighEnd version I had to exclude 42 from the "application" because else we couldn't dial in the normal situation. For those who like it - you must dial somewhat further down to see additional effect. I recall 35. But careful because when set too low, your PC will barely run and become too unresponsive. Als always activate "Boost at XXHighEnd Startup".

Thanks and regards,
Peter

[Telstar]

Nevermind, i got it.
Will upgrade to 2.10 tomorrow

Wow, just wow. SFS 5,19 is a big improvement.

[PeterSt]

Oh, I just noticed that I have my Nervous Rate at 10. So yes, I did this since it was possible to save it to other than 100 anyway (see 2.10 Release Notes).

I hope my Sig is up to date now.

Peter

[Robert]

Well 52 and 10 sure make a difference in sound quality. Gosh when I swapped over much more bass, had to turn the active crossover down.
These are settings I've not played with ever.
Sound is amazing but I said that 2 years ago, it just keeps improving.

I've been on this forum for 7 years gosh time flys.

[Telstar]

Sound is amazing but I said that 2 years ago.

You are still a freshman then!

[briefremarks]

First:

THERE IS NO ONE ELSE in audio delivering the kind of continuous improvement that Peter provides.  It is really staggering and unique.

Like everyone else here, just when it seems that SQ could not be any better, the bar is raised, and it absolutely has been raised with 2.10 and the new settings.

Some observations (playing familiar albums):
- Extreme clarity of instruments; separate yet coherent, without sharpness of any kind.  Accurate timbre (piano, horns, drums)
- Tremendous dynamics
- Fantastic resolution without any "etched" sound
- More 3D sound-stage

I'm not sure exactly what the balanced load or nervous rate settings do, or how much of the improvement in SQ is the SFS vs these parameters.

Amazing!!

Listening to "The Astounding Eyes of Rita" Anouar Brehem

[hudesigns]

Totally agreed!

2.10 has kept me in seat finishing whole albums, definitely a good sign. It is hard to describe this very addictive sound but let me try:

Gentle yet assertive, wide sound stage yet focused, smooth with an attitude, rich with powerful crescendo.

Natalie Merchant Natalie Merchant album sounds mesmerizing...

Thanks, Peter

[phantomax]

Others have already said it better than I could have said: better than ever.
The finesse of which I spoke in my previous post is even greater.
And this bearing in mind that I am still struggling with Xtweaks and timers in my spurious RAM OS.
In my case better with Custom filters than ArcPrediction.

Thank you, Peter. 

Maxi

[PeterSt]

Thank you all for the feedback so far !

I myself, lately, find myself to be in the middle of a new phenomenon : complaints about too loud playing. Not in absolute sense, but to the -in the end logical- sense that people who try to listen through headphones to Games, YouTubes or other, now have difficulty in not hearing "my music" louder.

But it will be true ...

It now regularly happens that I play 4.5-6dB louder than (I think) prior to the SFS = 5.19 setting, just because it all can have it. It goes more effortless and there seems to be no reason not to put up the volume (says the audio idiot).
I also think that "we" may put our volume to limits quite always, where the limits are determined by what's still justified by good sound. And not so much by loud sound.

All 'n all we have the odd situation that still nobody complaints when the music is (say 6dB) louder than other times just because there's nothing to complain really (no hurting ears), while at the same time it *is* louder and overvoices anything coming from headphones which or can't be louder or can't be put louder becaus then *that* hurting. .

Strange problem and hard to solve (says again the audio idiot).

Peter

[PeterSt]

These are settings I've not played with ever.
Sound is amazing but I said that 2 years ago, it just keeps improving.

Hi Robert,

Did I read something about "distortion" which I can't find back any more, or wasn't it you writing this, or did I perhaps dream ?

No problem to put it back, if it was you in the first place !

Regards,
Peter

[Telstar]

It now regularly happens that I play 4.5-6dB louder than (I think) prior to the SFS = 5.19 setting, just because it all can have it. It goes more effortless and there seems to be no reason not to put up the volume (says the audio idiot).
I also think that "we" may put our volume to limits quite

Yes, same, although not as pronounced as in your system. It is an indicator of less distortion IME.

[juanpmar]

In order not to repeat the same adjectives that others, I will say that once again I keep with the new settings. Just point out that I agree that there seems to be a better dynamic and sometimes I have the strange feeling like that the sound is going faster.
With respect to leaving the Turbo Boost inactive, I dare not touch anything on the Bios of my Asus mb since I don't  have the Stealh Pc, so if someone in my same case experiments with it I would like to know their opinion.
Good job Peter!

Best regards,
Juan

[CoenP]

FWIW my first impression:

I think that the SQ with 2.10 with Peter’s settings is quite a boost up from what I was able to archieve with 2.09. This is genuinly the best sound I’ve ever had from my system. Everything seems to be in it’s right place.

As we all know this is ‘the early’ days and who know’s what more is hidden in the settings. BIOS has not been touched.

I do want not dare compare it to pre 2.09 versions since I’ve been working on the PC-DAC setup a lot and SQ benefitted significantly from that.


Regards, Coen

[juanpmar]

Every day more happy thanks to the last settings. What a full sound plenty of details!

Juan 

[phantomax]

In my case better with Custom filters than ArcPrediction.

I must rectify: Better with Peter's settings!   

Maxi

[PeterSt]

[Arjan]

Hi All,

Yes, 2.10 is really nice.
Just played a bit around with settings, started off from the settings of Peter.
But ended with: clock resolution=0.5ms, nervous rate=1 and Q3=0 (again). Very nice low drive and good clearance.

regards

[manisandher]

Wow, what a difference in sound to 2.09! Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth:

Supreme clarity. Almost holographic now.

HF seems more prominent now. Lots of 'sparkle'. Can be a tad problematic with sibilance on some vocals.

Bottom end doesn't seem to have as much weight as 2.09. It sounds tighter and more tuneful though.

I was never convinced of high Q1 settings and an SFS>1.00 before - the sound always seemed a bit muffled. But with Peter's settings, the sound of 2.10 is anything but muffled.

Overall, I prefer 2.10 to 2.09. A bit more weight low-down would be nice though.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

A bit more weight low-down would be nice though.

For some reason I have more bass than ever. Haha.

Regards,
Peter

[manisandher]

For some reason I have more bass than ever.

Well, a bit more would't hurt, would it?

Anyway, I should revise my 'sibilance' statement earlier. I don't think there's any issue with sibilance actually. I think it's just the extreme clarity that was a bit of a shock to me.

I simply cannot fault the mids and highs I'm now getting. The lows are excellent in quality - I just need a bit more quantity.

Mani.

[Robert]

I have more bass as well. I had to reduce output to subs on active crossover which also improved the sound.

[juanpmar]

I also have more bass but above all I would say that the sound is fuller maybe because the bass is better integrated.

Juan

[manisandher]

I stayed up late last night listening to all sorts of music. 2.10 with Peter's XX settings is just crazily good sound. Is it down to 2.10 or the new settings? Who knows?

For me, it's the sheer detail that's coming through now that's a bit of a shock. And it's 'real' detail and not fake 'sheen' or anything like that.

I listened to loads of old jazz recordings. The tape hiss is very prominent at the beginning, but as soon as the music starts, it's as though XX is now extracting details below the level of the hiss.

This is a milestone in XX playback IMO.

(Oh, and all my 2.10 listening has been on an old Altmann 16-bit DAC (long story) with spdif input - no USB anywhere. I'll switch back to the NOS1 at some point of course, but am currently really enjoying this sound.)

Mani.

[Nick]

Hi,

I have been holding back posting on 2.10 sq to have some time to try settings, understand what changed, and particually understand changes in the bass.

The stand out 2.10 changes for me are mids and top end, there seems to be a massive amount of digital colour removed from the sound throughout these ranges and there is much more sparkle and clarity to the sound.  Voices in particualr are much clearer, there has been a slight haze around voices for as long as I can remember which has now gone what is absolutly fantastic. Precusion has an ease and clarity with serious dynamic that adds to the sense of realistic presence. All super stuff but there a cost IMHO moving to 2.10 from 2.09.

First is bass. 2.10 is very well controlled and damped but I have had to increase my dsp bass gain by more than a 1db to get close to percived bass levels that 2.09 produces. 2.10 can sound powerfull in mid and upper bass but low bass is rolled off very much compared to 2.09. The sub bass floor response that 2.09 excels at here is just not there to the same degree. Using Orelos with there 17hz rolloff point this is quite apperent and although it is perhaps the last half octive it makes a big difference to the low bass foundation of music.

Second is PRaT. In 2.09, taken overall across the range, PRaT has an edge this is despite the unmistakable mid high improments that 2.10 brings. Here 2.09 is still delivering a more life like overall enery into the room and has toes tapping more. For complex music with crescendos and high energy where you are not concentrating so much on "strands" of the performance but more on the overall power and drive of the performance 2.09 delivers more spectical and scale.

Overall right now I cannot decipher which version is better, to the point that I have had to set up two  OS versions on my RAM OS disk, one with 2.09 the other with 2.10. I find myself listening to the 'event' woven by 2.09 more often than 2.10 despite the very much  is better in mids and highs, 2.09 provides the bass foundation and overall slam with 2.10 being a small step behind in these areas and its timing.

We will all hear different portrayals due to system components and setups so I understand if the above dose not resonate elsewhere. Although 2.10 is a massive step forwards in mids and highs, my perception here is that low bass and overall PRaT have stepped back somewhat.

Regards,
Nick

[manisandher]

I think we're very much on the same wavelength Nick.

I find the extra "sparkle and clarity" of 2.10 really, really nice. There's so much going on in the music that I'd never noticed before - a cliché perhaps, but true in this case, I think.

Also, the mid and high dynamics are now utterly 'real'. My eldest son is currently practising for his grade 2 piano exam. I am constantly asking him to play more gently - even with his 8-year-old fingers, the initial transient attack of struck keys is quite forceful even a good distance away from the piano. For me, this is where virtually all replay systems fall down - they can get the 'macro dynamics' right, but not the immediate transient attacks of instruments (including vocals). With 2.10, my system now sounds utterly real to me. I listen to my son playing the piano, I go and listen to a piano track on the system, and the illusion of a piano sitting before me is so real. I listen to my younger son playing drums up in the loft, I go and listen to a drum test track on the system, and the cymbals, toms-toms, etc are for the first time as powerful as they are in reality. Only the kick drum doesn't quite cut it - the speed and tone is there, but the sheer air-moving volume isn't.

My speakers drop off rapidly below 40Hz or so in my room, so I don't have the ability to hear whether very deep bass is different between 2.09 and 2.10. On my system, I suspect the level of the bass is probably the same, but because the mids and highs are now more dynamic, the impression is that the bass is shyer that it was before, though tighter and more tuneful, I'd say.

Overall, I'm really enjoying 2.10. I just have to figure out how to get the low-end to sound as dynamic and life-like as the mid/high is. A good problem to have...

Mani.

[Arjan]

Hi,
Have you tried, clock resolution=0.5, nervous rate=1 and Q3=0?
See my details for the other settings, this gave me some extra drive in the low end.
Regards

[Nick]

Hi,
Have you tried, clock resolution=0.5, nervous rate=1 and Q3=0?
See my details for the other settings, this gave me some extra drive in the low end.
Regards

I will give it a go, keen to do what ever possible to recover the extra bass depth, thanks.

Kr Nick.

[Nick]

I just wanted to add a perspective to my earlier post which gets lost in some of the details.

2.10 is absolutly a masive step forwards in that the sound is sooo much more transparent. Getting rid of hash is very difficult and 2.10 sounds like a masive step in this regard.

I guess the high level point is that in my system low bass foundation and drive sounds light by comparison here. If i can tune to co bine the lows and slam of  2.09 with the goodness in mids and highs in 2.10 i will be a very happy camper indeed. :-)

Regards,

Nick.

[Rmalits]

Hello Nick,

all this is very interesting for me, because I had similar experiences with XXHE 2.10 since I installed it more than a week ago.
I agree with all the post above, 2.10 brings amazing improvements of SQ, but I too missed something in the low frequencies.

I have one question:  Do you use the same SQ paramenters for both versions: 2.09 and 2.10?

After reading your post today I did some intense testing again with both versions: 2.09 and 2.10.
I am using SQ parameters with large buffer sizes (see my new signature), very similar to Peter's settings. As many others here I changed to that because 2.09 was too punchy in my ears compared to 2.07. And I was very happy then with the SQ, especially for the bass range.
With 2.10 it went the opposite way somehow. With Peter's actual settings (SFS: 5.19, Balanced Load: 52) the basses didn't sound so well with my audio equipment: louder, but not precise enough, too smooth and mellow.

Today I changed some settings, which brought back the amazing low frequencies of 2.09, still using the high buffer sizes:
- SFS: back to 10.19 (as I had it most of the time with 2.09)
- Balanced Load: back to 43 (52 makes the basses louder but much more unprecise in my ears)
- Nervous Rate: between 10 and 20. I am using 16 right now (with 2.09 this was set to 100)
- I am now using AP (what I never did before)

With these settings I feel no need any more to switch back to 2.09. The punchy and precise lower bass range is back again. With 2.10 the mids and highs made a big step foreward anyway.
And it's amazing how SQ can still be influenced by small changes of Nervous Rate.

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Hi,
Have you tried, clock resolution=0.5, nervous rate=1 and Q3=0?
See my details for the other settings, this gave me some extra drive in the low end.
Regards

I will give it a go, keen to do what ever possible to recover the extra bass depth, thanks.

Kr Nick.

Hi Nick, sorry to disturb you at this inordinate time  , but assumed your sig is up to date, you don't "comply" to anything much we are talking about. So, Arjan gives you an advice here, you say that you wil try it out, but meanwhile about all of your other settings are not consistent by miles with what we are talking about. And please notice that this started in the (your) 2.09 topic (somewhere under way, by me myself) and from there all was worked out in more detail.

I am using SQ parameters with large buffer sizes (see my new signature),

So that. This is super crucial because it is all about the combination of the large buffer sizes with the low SFS (this hasn't been done in 10 years until recently (2.09).

- Balanced Load: back to 43 (52 makes the basses louder but much more unprecise in my ears)

I think this is crucial too and it resembles my remark about this, I think still in the 2.09 topic or maybe it was 2.10 already) that I used 41 (which works since some W10 build) but which I found later to have dreamt because my system was at 52. So I re-applied that to my sig (after having changed it to 41 the same day). This 52 is probably wrong (creeped into it because of RAM-OS not saving because of whatever (power) failure) with also the notice that I don't even use that system at this moment. Long story short : at this moment I have more trust in Richard's findings than I have in my own memory. And btw, in the system I *am* using at the moment, the Balanced load is at 18 ... (this implies 380MHz and less it can't bear (stutter)).

Best regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Have you tried, clock resolution=0.5, nervous rate=1 and Q3=0?
See my details for the other settings, this gave me some extra drive in the low end.

Hi Arjan,

I only wanted to add to this that this is not a real fair proposition, were it about more bass as such. What the Q3=0 does (I also noticed the Q3,4,5 = 0 in Nick's sig) is that it takes down a level of detail and with that crispyness, which indeed will make the bass more profound, but thus in a somewhat illegal fashion. Take out all the treble and your system will be way bassy. But no bass was added as such.
Btw, someone else just said similar and I only want to emphasize that your Q3=0 does that.

What I should also add in the same context, is that Nick is a real "bass heavy" guy. He will have set his Q3,4,5 all at 0 emperically found for that very reason. This is a matter of "to each his own" but in the mean time it is a bit hard to communicate over matters.

Btw, Nick nicely and rightfully announced that his system can't be compared to others and actually I should do too (in either situation I am referring to the Audio PC).

Best regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

First is bass. 2.10 is very well controlled and damped but I have had to increase my dsp bass gain by more than a 1db to get close to percived bass levels that 2.09 produces. 2.10 can sound powerfull in mid and upper bass but low bass is rolled off very much compared to 2.09. The sub bass floor response that 2.09 excels at here is just not there to the same degree. Using Orelos with there 17hz rolloff point this is quite apperent and although it is perhaps the last half octive it makes a big difference to the low bass foundation of music.

So Nick, what I actually scratched in my initial response of the bass is that I have spades of more sub low now. I of course fully agree with the second by me bolded sentencem but for me it went the exact other way around. The whole room is energised because of this and because of *that* the hihgs can bear much more (so this effect is opposite of what I said in my previous post). It also implies/creates the abnormal transparency.

But our systems can not be compared.
So I don't want the "I have the better bass" guy, but I do need to point out that consistency for relative changes, is crucial. So once more : If I change my SFS from 10.19 to 5.19 this seems to be out of context of anything else. But it is all about the combination with Q1 of 30x40. Don't do that and nothing new or special or anything is there about any ".19" SFS setting. Well, that is what I think ...

Peter

[Nick]

Hi Peter,

I will look again at settings, I have been playing about for a while with them based on your signature settings before posting, mids and highs are great but not much luck so far with the low bass.

One quick test I use is to watch the Orelo bass cone excursions from the back of the drivers. Its easy to see lower frequency notes and watch the driver during  bass pitch slides. 2.09 produces much more visible excursion on sub bass notes. It is just the last 20 or 30 hz I think, its not missing altogether in 2.10 but excursions are much much smaller.

Definatly time to revisit software settings and possibly retune my pc elsewhere.

Kr,

Nick.

[Robert]

2.09 produces much more visible excursion on sub bass notes.

Nick

When I fired up 2.10 new settings this is what I observed on my subs immediately. I reduced output to subs on active crossover by a click or two. This resulted in a cleaner more open sound. The bass was much more detailed and accurate.

One could feel you had lost some bass weight but this is replaced by a much better bass definition(I use live unamplified and amplified double bass in music recordings to test this).

My sub drivers(12in, 300mm) barely move even at volume(85 to 90db).

I have always preferred a leaner bass sound as it easily over whelms the mid/highs. In reality most live bass is not low/deep unless amplified/boosted for DJ dance/reggae/pop or some jazz/rock fusion. 

Personally I do enjoy this music particularly bass/drums, having been a drummer in a previous life, but a lot is recorded poorly often with exaggerated bass, so is difficult to get sounding right on a home system particularly in the bass region.


Robert

[Nick]

Robert hi,

My comments are not born out of being used to an old sound and not likeing a leaner more damped reproduction of the new. I will try to give more background.

Regarding the bass driver excursion observation, in my system this is very relevant. The reason for this is that Orelo speaker bass is generated by open baffled horns. These require relativly large cone excursions needed to reproduce low bass frequencies. They Orelos have a flat respone down to 17hz iirc, to deliver this resonse the dsp which drives the bass has dbs of signal lift into the drives in the sub 40hz region in order to move the speaker cone sufficently to produce the flat resonse. For Orelos a drop in cone excursion to minimal levels at low frequency means there is a significant drop in output.

I think your PL Audios subs may be enclosure or possibly reflex loaded meaning that its excursion can be much smaller relative to an open baffel system so I would expect quite a difference in low frequency cone excursion behavior between our systems.

I have not really provided the full system context for my comments. To explain, I have spent almost two years developing and tuning pc, dac and speaker modifications which I have not posted about. These really elevate sound quality to a very high level (this is in the context of the already high starting point of my phasure / db design system). With 2.09 the bass performance is very realistic in energy levels whilst staying well defined, damped and delineated. I do not measure room response but I would say response is good down to the 17hz roll off of the speakers. This means that kick drums and electronic bass sounds for instance go right down whilst retaining realistic energy levels and quality in my listening room which is quite large.

The issue is that in the last half octave 2.10 is just not doing this. I can try software settings again and see if these pull the sound back, but right now its somthing of a no brainer 2.09 excels in low bass, 2.10 is better in most other areas but if scale and PRaT are needed by the music I still find myself going for 2.09. Just hope there is a way to get the bass back to where it was with using 2.10. More work to do......

Regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Regarding the bass driver excursion observation, in my system this is very relevant. The reason for this is that Orelo speaker bass is generated by open baffled horns. These require relativly large cone excursions needed to reproduce low bass frequencies.

Hi Nick,

Nah, the contrary. Unless you call 2-3mm (to one side) relatively large of course.

They Orelos have a flat respone down to 17hz iirc

It is 19Hz, but that does not matter. What does matter is if you really "think" the excursion is to be relatively large, then you are playing right in the distortion region. Because it just can't excur largely or else you'll just *have* the distortion.
Assumed this is your case (and you thus overblow the bass to begin with) something else is going to happen :

It now takes "nothing" to cross the border of distortion vs no distortion and even the slighest change in response will alter the audible SPL largely. It is a matter of e.g. 22Hz barely audible (but you will feel it) with no distortion vs a 2nd harmonic (44Hz) getting profound and of which you still think is is "sub low". You just wouldn't know the difference when this kick drum is playing, because it would produce both 44Hz and 22Hz (it goes down in the "ambient" to ~20Hz). So really, 0.2dB of output change in level may incur for 20dB of audible SPL (2nd harmonic distortion) easily. It is a very slippery slope there.

Do notice that the sheer fact that you mention a required "relatively large excursion" tells me all.
And let's also keep in mind that the speakers are rated for 19Hz without audible distortion (meaning that you will hear zilch of 19Hz) when the SPL (of 19Hz) is 89.

Hope this helps !
Peter

[Robert]

I *am* using at the moment, the Balanced load is at 18

This probably has gone unnoticed largely, but even more bass and detail.

Have to listen longer but worth a try.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Robert,

I *am* using at the moment, the Balanced load is at 18

All is quite vague for myself lately because of using an other PC with different processor with different (BIOS) settings possibilities and with nothing in there which can be set like we could with the ASRock known MoBo('s). Still things largely can work out the same, or do nothing for indirect settings and *still* work out the same. So for example, what I use currently implies a frequency of 670MHz of which it looked like the Balance Load of 18 is implying it, but actually at this moment my Balanced Load can be anything, the PC still showing 670MHz. I am not saying that I don't understand, but it makes communication (and signatures ) difficult at this moment.
Of what I recall, the Balanced Load of 18 should normally imply 320MHz.



Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

on my audio PC Stealth Mach II (with XEON E5 processor) turbo boost looks like being on, because I see up to 3.3 GHz.
When playing in unattended mode the speed goes down as it should:
e.g. 0.86 MHz with Balanced Load set to 36.
Is this ok like this?
Or shall I try to disable turbo boost in the BIOS settings?
(I never changed anything yet in the BIOS of this PC)

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Hello Richard,

Strange. But also the second time I run into this (was the first time mentioned on the forum, 3 weeks or so ago ? - maybe not).

So somehow this can happen and I saw it myself with a Stealth over here. I think this can happen with a strange (re)boot. Thus, if you'd be able to watch closely, the system boots, shuts off again (fans stop - not that you will have fans running in there anyway), and 3 seconds later boots again. That was the situation I saw that after that Turbo Boost was active.
Saw it one time, but maybe it happens more often; normally I don't watch out for this.

Question : Is Turbo Boost still on after another reboot ?
If it remains like that I'll guide you through the process of changing something in the BIOS. OK ?

Best regards,
Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

after rebooting the max. speed is now 1.8GHz.
Is this value ok?

When playing unattended is goes down as described above.

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

after rebooting the max. speed is now 1.8GHz.

Yes Richard, that is what it should be for your Stealth. All OK.

Best regards,
Peter

[Nick]

Haha... 2.10 Bass is back 

Just a quick update on my ealier post on 2.09 vs 2.10 base.

I was sure I was hearing a large difference in 2.10 output and this was correct. However, 2.10 bass is fixed now and is sounding at least as good if not better the 2.09. I am REALLY pleased with the overall sound, now getting the supper sweet 2.10 mids and highs with epic dry powerfull bass the extends stongly down again in the low bass frequencies.

The fix to get 2.10 bass back was two things:

1 Bios settings - needed to set spread spectrum to "on" in bios (x99 mobo).
2 NOS1 - needed to tighten up board connections in my NOS1. This was my fault and shoul not apply to other people.

Overall now an sound is EPIC, low bass is back and now better than 2.09 

Thank you all for comments and suggestions above in the post.

Regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

[rudolf]

 
 Hi there, just wanted to leave a short message about how I'm pleased with version 2.10 and the sound quality I get, especially with MQA. I have been listening to vinyl quite a time but now I'm back and I'm really surprised, how things went further here: especially the possibility of playing tidal playlists 'on the fly' really means a lot of fun to me these days....and I begin to understand, what MQA is all about...so thanks a lot and keep on with xxhighend!!! ______________________________________________________________________
_{XXhigh 2.10 on Windows 8 PC (AMD A6-3650 APU 16 GB RAM) - Adaptive Mode / Q1/-/3/4/5 = 14/-/0/0/0/ Q1Factor = 1 / Dev.Buffer = 256 / ClockRes = 1ms / Memory = Mixed/  SFS = 60  (max 120 / Playerprio = Low / ThreadPrio = Realtime / Scheme = Core 2-3 / not Switch Processors during Playback = Off/ / UnAttended  / /Stop all Services Off / Stop Desktop and Remaining Services ON/ Keep LAN =off/ Not Persist / WallPaper Off/  Minimize OS / XTweaks : off
Advance xi-75 Amp with build in asyncronous DAC - ProAc Studio 130 Speakers}

[PeterSt]

Nice to hear from you (like this), Rudolf.

Kind regards,
Peter

[Robert]

Generally this version operates with the least problems for me with the settings I'm currently using. I have not reversed settings as it all sounds great.

Has anyone tried new settings?

Robert

[PeterSt]

Has anyone tried new settings?

Even if "they" do, they prefer to remain silent. Must be the weather.

Anyway, I have, but I may not be the most representative by now (Stealth III and such) :
SFS=140.19 (don't ask about the .19) and Q1 x xQ1=30 x 11.
All other still the same.

If possible this brings even more "mid" detail again with the notice I am using the 10-20 core Stealth III version.
Maybe you can try it too and maybe it brings you a similar change ?
Small warning : I do not recognize anything of this mid or highs etc. special detail from even the Mach II, so posssibly for you there is no change at all, except for what we were used to (and then for Mach II similar to any PC as far as I can/could tell). Still curious though ...

Thank you for asking, Robert - by now I feel a bit reluctant in expressing these matters as they could be useless to you all. And still ...

Peter

[Robert]

I'm trying these new settings and yes I can hear a difference and so far prefer it. I will run with it for a few days and go back.

Particularly noticeable on minimal good recordings like Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat "Let it be your Will" and Melody Gardot - Live in Europe "Our Love is Easy". The voice/guitar has more depth not as bright, so volume can go up more. Stage bigger, easier to listen.

I have yet to get my guitar/singer wife to give her opinion.

I concur with Fred on his listening reply re the MachIII to these settings. You don't need a MachIII to hear the difference.

Robert

[fmanheck]

When I read Robert's post I had to try the new settings with those exact songs.

We have similar tastes Robert, as I love Jennifer and while pretty new to Melody I like her very much. After that I went into some Leonard Cohen himself followed by a few covers of Halleluiah.

Sound on all sounded great on the new settings. It was not until I went back that I really could hear the difference. I just could not keep the old settings for very long. It's not that the sound was bad... far from it. It's just my ears got used to something better. Kind of like every time Peter makes an improvement on hardware. Now it' settings. keep experimenting Peter. I am along for the ride

[PeterSt]

Thank you guys.
And Robert, good to know you perceive a similar (or same) kind of sound change.

Enjoy the weekend,
Peter

[Robert]

I've run into problems with this setting. Data not arriving in time. I've reduced SFS to 20. I found I preferred Q1 x xQ1 = 30 x 40.

Music was stopping midway through an album.

It has prompted me to try different settings.

Robert

[PeterSt]

I've run into problems with this setting.

Hi Robert,

FWIW, this is also related to a too low Balanced Load setting (in combination with the other settings).

Regards,
Peter

[dsm]

Hi Peter,

I've been listening to the new settings for  the past day or so and am enjoying them. When  I use unattended with the album art wallpaper, I find that the cover art will change to the next song before the current song stops playing. Maybe about 5 seconds before or so.
I have also noticed that sometimes the last song in a playlist may suddenly stop a couple of seconds before its' correct end.

My balanced load is at 43. Are these events that happen with only about 5 seconds left on a song related to that setting also? Or is it something else?

These issues don't  bother me now, but if I decide to keep this high SFS I may try to find a solution.

Best,

David

[PeterSt]

Hi there David,

Correct - the settings in their combination imply what you observe regarding the Wallpaper. This is also why I lowered the 30 x 40 (Q1) to 30 x 11, so it is "doable".
You will also notice that Alt-n(ext) implies a strange start of the next track, at times. It is all the same thing.

The early stop I never noticed, but this could be a matter of not paying attention (or play music where this is not easily noticable). Anyway, it will be the same thing again; you will notice the maybe even 20 seconds delay on e.g. Alt-n because that is the size of the buffer and that at 768 (705.6). Make that e.g. 192 (176.4) for DACs which won't allow a higher input rate, and the buffer is even 4 times larger - actually not much under control (read : not meant for decent control).

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: No pea soup weather over here, these days !

[BertD]

Hi Peter,

Haven't listened for 3 months (or even more) and thought "why not try those new settings with the high SFS (140.19 instead of 5.19).

Awfull... thought is was burning in all over again because the sound was plain flat (no ambiance, no dynamics), no focus (all over the place), grey, etc...

Turned it back to 5.19 again and guess what! Still not 100% to my liking but much better than the high SFS!

In other words, it does not work on my system at all (non Stealth or other upgrades besides the "B").

Too much to handle for my PC I guess?

Additonal Note: RDC does not work anymore so playing now with video card inserted and monitor connected...

Bert

[PeterSt]

Hey Bert,

As we know, playing with the video card in is killing in itself.

Otherwise, yes, the high SFS normally makes things more flat. But with tweak over tweak (all commercially avaialble so nothing really strange) it now is like this. And for someone like Robert maybe coincidence ?

Btw, it comes to me that the sound with the higher SFS is more robust. I think Robert said something similar (?).

Now (you) on to repairing the RDC (CredSSP policy change - no RDP possible) or else all stays bad ...

Regards,
Peter

[BertD]

I am trying to solve the problem for 4 hours already but nothing seems to work out.

gpedit does not exist and when installed it does not give me the administration tab nor the deeper links to be able to change things as described.

I probably have to install an older W10 version on the tablet (before March 2018) and never update it again...

Not even the mobile phone app (Android) connects! :-(

Stupid stuff...

[juanpmar]

Bert, I had the same problem with the RDC and the CredSSP policy and in the end I was unable to solve it. The solution, for the moment, has been to install again the OS (W10 Pro) on the Music Server. I have allowed the windows updates and so far I have no problems to connect the RDC.

Regards,
Juan

[BertD]

Thanks Juan,

With Music Server you mean server for real or the PC you use to control de Audio PC?

I do not have a server in between the Audio PC and my Main PC. Perhaps I should one day but since my NAS always worked out OK then why change?

Bert

[juanpmar]

Hi Bert,

By Music Server Pc I mean the Pc where I have all the music stored. It has an OS, a monitor and the SSD's with the music. From this Pc I control through remote desktop vía an Ethernet cable the other Pc (Audio Pc). This Audio Pc, once I have removed the ramdisk, has nothing but the memory, it has neither monitor nor graphic card.

Regards,
Juan

[BertD]

Clear! 

Thanks Juan...

Bert

[dsm]

Hi Peter,

This may be a slight exaggeration but here is a quick description of  what is happening for me with the different SFS settings.  Since I listen in my studio and it is not  a nice acoustically set up room, my speakers cannot be placed at an equal distance from my usual listening position. With the SFS set a 5.19,  that doesn't matter, they are close enough. The voice is in the center and everything sounds pretty good and full but maybe a bit like listening with headphones as far as the soundstage is concerned.

With the higher SFS, I noticed  the voice pulls to the closer speaker and the instruments sound as if they are more present within the room. I've had to experiment with the speaker placement so I could get everything to fit back together but it feels like there is more clarity in each individual speaker and less which gets mixed up between them if that makes sense.  I am preferring the higher SFS now.

The early stop I never noticed, but this could be a matter of not paying attention (or play music where this is not easily noticable). Anyway, it will be the same thing again; you will notice the maybe even 20 seconds delay on e.g. Alt-n because that is the size of the buffer and that at 768 (705.6).

I constantly get the early stop if I play one track at a time. On the task manager, I noticed my CPU drops from 12% at .77 GHZ to 0% at about that 5 second mark before the track ending. Any idea why the CPU would just drop to 0% like that?

Best,

David

[PeterSt]

Hi David,

Thank you for this really great elaboration of what you perceive. You couldn't have done it better and of course you (or we !) are lucky that you have this coincidental situation which allows this to occur. Great stuff.

I constantly get the early stop if I play one track at a time. [...] I noticed my CPU drops from 12% at .77 GHZ to 0% at about that 5 second mark before the track ending.

This is the logical result of the sound engine stopping to process the music data.
I assume that when you'd play 2 tracks at a time, the early stop equally occurs at the end of each last (thus the 2nd) track, right ?

I now assume that this is exactly the same as the ("5 second") early Wallpaper Coverart change. I know how weird this looks - as if something knows the future. But say this is about how a buffer gets pre-filled (and given to the Operating System), the software seeing when a new track begins (thus puts out the new Wallpaper), but the previous buffer still needs to play (out). Similar happens at the end, with this difference : instead of putting out a new Wallpaper, the sound engine abrubtly stops, instead of letting this last buffer play out.
Maybe I can solve this, and it should be about the Q1 of 30 x 11 (thus make this e.g. 14 x 1 and you won't see it happen, although there's still the small "14" part (instead of 330).

Thank you David.
Peter

[Robert]

My current settings are SFS 20.19 MAX 140.19, xQ1=40.

I find old settings at SFS 5.19 MAX 120 xQ1=40 have an openness in the treble I like but is brighter, which is subdued with SFS 140.19 MAX 140.19 xQ1=11. I did prefer putting xQ1=11 back to 40 with SFS 140.19 to overcome this. Ran into playback problems at this point.

Due to slowness probably with my PC I've settled at above for now.

I don't know whether MAX SFS has any influence on the sound yet.

Robert

[Robert]

Bert I was interested in this comment you made

Haven't listened for 3 months (or even more) and thought "why not try those new settings with the high SFS (140.19 instead of 5.19).

Does this mean you don't use XXhighend generally for listening or something else?

Robert

[dsm]

Hi Peter,

As a side note, I have always preferred the lower SFS settings so I am surprised that this one holds together for me. I also built a new amp recently and have been adjusting to its sound, so it could be a combination of things. Maybe also the heat. No soup here either.

I assume that when you'd play 2 tracks at a time, the early stop equally occurs at the end of each last (thus the 2nd) track, right ?

Yes, this is correct. The early stop doesn't really bother me now since there are no problems with the rest of the playlist.

Best,

David

[BertD]

Does this mean you don't use XXhighend generally for listening or something else?

Haven't listened seriously at all ... other priorities.

Bert

[Rmalits]

After reading these post I did some tries with much higher SFS values for my Stealh Mach II and reduced Q1x significantly.

SFS = 140.19 doesn't work with the Mach II, it's pretty spurious
SFS = 70.19 brings amazingly good sound stage, but SQ? It sounds too loud, due to distortion I guess.
SFS = 35.19 works nicely when Q1x is down to 2 or so. That's what I am trying now.

SFS seems to be limited somewhere there with my Mach II. But trying such high SFS gave me kind of an idea what it could sound like, holographic, spooky, ....

So, Peter, I need a Mach III. There is no way around I think, althouh this would be my third Stealth already within 2.5 years 
What will be the delivery time when I order one now?

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Hi Richard,

What will be the delivery time when I order one now?

When you go for the 14/28 processor (which is really advised by now), say two weeks if I can get a Motherboard from somewhere. They are sparsely available and I just put one to an RMA procedure this afternoon because it wasn't right. Still waiting for another one for a customer (for 3-4 weeks by now), so actually it is going sloooowwww.

By the time you ask me to make an invoice for you, I will start looking elsewhere as well and let you know the estimated lead time.

Thank you Richard,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Richard, in order to keep this topic clean somewhat, I moved your last reply regarding this to here : Re: Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply.

Regards,
Peter

[Robert]

As a result of a recent Bios update and resetting, disabling Bios settings, more than I have ever been brave to try, the subsequent sound with Peters current XX settings is amazing. I also prefer Disable Cracks off sound wise.

Lush 2 is on the horizon perhaps a Xmas present. 

Robert

[briefremarks]

Robert,

Looking at you signature I see you are using Scheme 3-4; Peter has 3-5.

Ramesh

[Robert]

 Yes only have 4 cores, 3/4 sounds the best. I was meaning SFS and balanced settings primarily. Although I should retry the core settings.

Bios settings have a large effect on the sound something I'd forgotten. I have been running Bios update default settings for 3 weeks and didn't notice till Peter's Disable Crack comment. Its interesting how one can get use to a sound quite easily and not realise some things are not optimised.

Yes I'm miles away from the new Stealth MKIII still better than a laptop.

Robert

[numlog]

Being unfamiliar with software would it be likely for current version of XXHe to work on Server 2019 or will that require some work?
and working might not mean sounding good but at least so far impressions of 2019 have been very positive.

btw would OS changes require reactivation of XXHE, so that experimenting with different OS isnt really an option?

[PeterSt]

btw would OS changes require reactivation of XXHE, so that experimenting with different OS isnt really an option?

It would, but you will be refunded right away because, well, that is the policy.

It might require work but what that is can not predicted at this moment. The least what should happen is that it technically differentiates from the others. From there it can be tweaked. Small problem : not my me ...
So FYI : at this moment there is hardly interest in WS2019. This is because the desktop OS is "minimized" to less than (core) server to begin with. This has been so in the past for all server versions ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

Hey All,

I think it is fair to say that I have chosen a new SFS setting(s combination) : 10.19. This, together with Q1 x xQ1 of 30 and 20, a ClockRes of 15 and Q3,4,5 at 1,1,1. For those with the NOS1 : The buffer size in there is 16ms.

The .19 fraction in the SFS of 10.19 is "as usual" (lately). The "new" about this should be the combination of the somewhat lower SFS with the otherwise higher settings.

Watch out : I am posting this in the general "Sound Quality" section because I have to post it somewhere. However, people should realize that a larger bunch of you is not coming along with all what is new as of late, and therefore what I have so say will be moot to you / that bunch. Of course, everybody must obtain what they deem fit and what the $ (AKA wife) allows for, but in any event the below text will be quite useless to those who did not come along. Still, because yet another group of people sure does come along (and stays on par), it still seems justified that I post about it anyway. OK ?

The specificity about my "hardware" setup what most of you don't possess comprises of :

- Stealth Mach III Audio PC (10/20 Core);
- Lush^2 USB cable (100cm);
- Blaxius^2 Interlink (325cm).

Each of these elements contribute vastly (and I mean vastly) to the sound, thought impossible only 6 months ago. The leap is more than a quantum leap. So much so that I start to feel alone in this universe. And I hear ya : No, it is impossible to improve over what I currently have.
Sure.

What the whole lot today is about is speed, speed and even more speed than you will ever be able to comprehend. This is so much so that "original" completely bland sounds (like from a synthesizer) now fold apart into their individual frequency oscillator on-off sounds. Think like a prior sine (sinus) sound becoming the not-sine at all because of it going on/off in high frequency. I have talked about this more often in a far past and for those who remember : think like the Silverstone USB card's expression and how that too could be dedicated to on/off sound, although in a relatively very low frequency. Think 20Hz or so. And mind you, the normal "sine" frequency can be anything, e.g. 2000Hz, but if 20 times per second that sound briefly goes completely dead, you have a kind of modulation which could be "interesting". Of what I recall, this worked very well on the cymbals, but, it was fake. It brought a flavor. And we only noticed when environmental things improved (I think it was W10-14393.0 which killed the usage of the Silverstone card ? - or maybe it was (the combination with) the Clairixa USB cable).
What I am talking about today is the inherently present on/off sound many instruments produce. Thus not only synthesizes (when set to do it) but also a violin, a trumpet, a saxophone, a snare drum, a cymbal with nails in it (sizzle cymbal) and in the end also a human voice. Etc. etc.

Today it is relatively easy to observe that an almost infinite on/off frequency is still normally audible (say up to 200Hz) or detectable otherwise (above 200Hz). It adds a dimension to even artists as a whole, out of this universe. I mean, look at Jean-Michel Jarre's latest - Equinoxe Infinity. I was encouraged to get and play it while I initially refused. I deem the music too simple and too much of "synthesizer". But oh wow. His "production(s ?)" are completely transferred into something which takes you away with open-mouth interest, just because of what "sound" can do, that ending up in sheer music. And all what actually happens is the bzzzzzzz sound. And yes, it is your turn to transfer this bzzzzzzz into an on/off sound. Try it (with your tongue/mouth) - you will manage, no matter you thought the zzz was completely concatenated. It isn't. It goes on and off at a very high frequency. And when it does not, it won't be your bzzzzzzz but merely a sine of some frequency.

When I now first start out telling about the previous setting of SFS=140.19 (all else the same) and noticing how the Blaxius^2 was (is) more and more breaking in, I found the clear sound to become too profound. Not tiring or the like, but just overly clear. But what I also noticed - and this will be the speed of the speakers - is that some sounds seemed impossible to cope. This is hard to explain without listening, and even with listening it would be tough to discover tracks with it unless I noted them somewhere which I did not, but you could observe a kind of oscillating sound some times which just occurred 1 time too many per day in order to believe it was a natural sound. IOW, after quite some weeks now with the same (hardware) setup, I started to believe that something just could not cope.
Btw, easy to think it is incomplete reconstruction filtering, but I tested that and it doesn't make a difference for these observations.

Making a side step (again, sorry), I am 100% sure it is the Blaxius^2 which in some abnormal way preserves all which otherwise "escaped". I think of "frequency escaping from the cable" which is almost literal. That is, if we think about how shielding could preserve higher frequency (and real on/off is infinitely high frequency - though bandlimited by the sampling rate) and less/no radiation with it, then you can sense how I think these days.

And so I have been working on this and eventually came to the logic" of the system being able to track the higher frequency on/off sounds better when it would respond faster. This now is about the computer only, which, again inherently already is blazingly fast itself (the Mach III with its fast PSU, explicitly made for this (speed) job). But there's also the software ...

Others have noted it too, but when all is so extraordinaire(ly) fast and with that the most critical to distortion, it becomes a must that the PC does not run for too long. Mine normally runs 24/7 for weeks and weeks until something coincidentally requires a reboot, but these days I'd say this is not allowed any more. In the third day you will hear it. Whether this implies a daily reboot I don't know yet, but it could be good behavior.

Now on to the change, may you want to try it yourself, regardless whether you are "on par" :

On a new day and prior to your listening session, reboot the Audio PC (or boot it when it was not on in the first place - haha).
From that point on, set the SFS to 10.19. Thus, do NOT do that after listening to a higher setting like the current (for many) of 140.19 on that same day. If you do that you won't be able to cope hence like it. I am serious and this is a brain thing. Also, the reboot is necessary to not let it fail because of distortion in the first place.

Know that 99% most probably you may need a whopping 40 minutes of playback (all active, hence playing without sound will not help) before you are even allowed to judge. Do notice that I myself will not solve this by means of starting playback and have a shower to avoid the sheer distortion of that period (all way too cold) because, well, I like to observe what happens. No matter it is day in day out like this, it is just my behavior and I have no problems with it. But merely : you may notice a few stages of clicking in and at some final stage your adrenaline boosts, your jaw drops and from there you won't know what is happening to you. Or, what the system now is capable of.


Ah, I was going to talk about the SFS of 10.19. All right ...

What I sense of this, is foremost the strange combination of again more detail but with an unsurpassed silkiness. The too clear sound I talked about in the beginning, now becomes more natural. It could even be less digital, if you want. Less clinical. But mind you, this is not the explicit observation; this is merely about a disturbance eliminated. The disturbance as such is not about bad sound, but a deep down annoyance of the thought "can this be right ?". At least that it how I myself listen. The SFS of 10.19 in my mind responds faster to required changes (or possibly to "frequency"  as such) and now I write this I see that I maybe must look into the Nervous Rate as well, because that would *really* be responding to required changes.

Side note : if you'd change the SFS of 140.19 to 10.19 in an A-B comparison, you will be missing the clarity and will switch back in no-time. This is why you must start your today's session with the 10.19. IMHO etc.

What I find interesting is that a perceived hardware-limit (like something can't cope - speakers or amplifiers) can be solved by more "response speed" in the software. I think we all have the experience with the lower SFS'es (well, maybe not the 10 range so much but way lower) and how that increased crispiness. Am I right ?
So how is it possible that today it goes the exact other way around. Today - and I am quite definite about it - the higher genuine frequency implied fills holes which otherwise are too square and imply false higher frequency. Oh, that is crisp all right, but is it happening in reality ? And, if response is more slow the holes close to a bland(er) sound and all merely become sines. In addition I think that the higher frequency real (mere) sines of, say, 2000Hz, become too much forward because in reality they were no sines but contained small (on/off) interruptions. This softens. Or better : all what is more real will be for the better to beging with. This (too) is how our brain operates.

Right. As you can see I am at inordinate levels of judging now, which only happens because it just can be observed. Key of course is how an observability can be turned into something for the better again. This post was about that. And it took me two weeks or so of trying (getting rid of the deep-down small annoyance). So it is not easy.
But man, is it rewarding.

Peter

[Robert]

What's the max SFS set to with 10.19?

Robert

[PeterSt]

What's the max SFS set to with 10.19?

Robert - What the Max SFS would do is reserve memory for the higher SFS settings; when you didn't make this reservation, the problem could be that by the time you'd need that higher SFS (like 140 again), the contigous memory has been eaten and it will require a reboot first.

From this follows that you can apply the Max SFS as a tweak. Notice though that I don't have the real experience on this (but since you ask ...);
The more memory you reserve, the less the OS will be capable of using it. This is because *you* are using it (albeit empty except for the small SFS amount you really use). This could force OS tasks not to run - and you don't want to run anything anyway (except for your audio).
It also would prevent the Garbage Collector to be active regulalrly because what wasn't used (because you use it permanently) doesn't need to be cleaned up either.
Etc.

Contrary to the above, one could argue that you make it the OS more difficult by taking out memory it needs to use. So now more activity takes place.
Again, etc.

Peter

[Robert]

Are you running the Max SFS 10.19 at 10.19 max?

I've tried this and there is a clarity/smoothness over 140.19.

Mine normally runs 24/7 for weeks and weeks until something coincidentally requires a reboot, but these days I'd say this is not allowed any more. In the third day you will hear it. Whether this implies a daily reboot I don't know yet, but it could be good behavior.

Yes this is something I discovered last week after leaving on 24/7 for a week. I thought gosh music has become dull or is it my ears. I rebooted and music came back to life. If one plays music everyday I think fresh reboot is required everyday but as you suggest no longer than 3 is ok. I don't bother removing HD that often anymore.

Robert

[acg]

Yep, I've gotta reboot my AudioPC every day or the sound gets flat...it's very noticeable.

[PeterSt]

What's the max SFS set to with 10.19?

Robert, aoplogies. Somehow yesterday I was not able to interpret this easy question. I read it as "what is the relation with".
Now the answer :

I have been careless and after looking just now I found it was set to 140.19. This is because at first the SFS itself was at that. Better would be to activate the "Maximum the same as SFS". That is, assumed one wants to reserve as least memory as possible. But now you won't be able to test e.g. 20 after a while (memory eaten).

And hmm ... yesterday I changed my Nervous Rate from 10 to 3, did not find it to be a real difference, but now I see that it also requires an Apply (so it was atill active at 10). Maybe it was Black Friday ? Or the placebo just didn't work.
I now clicked Apply. Next we can bet that tonight all sounds lousy and I can't find why. Maybe someone reminds me ...

Regards,
Peter

[Robert]

Yes I find some changes are easily heard others subtle. I havn't changed to Lush 2 yet kind of waiting for things to settle but now its moved to other cables. I do wonder if Nordost have already discovered what you have with these recent advances with screens. The more I think about it they can only do so much with materials. Mind you when you can afford a 24/7 design team its highly likely you discover things.

I really see the benefits of the Stealth III the source has always been critical in audio.

Xxhighend software still has hidden talents.

Robert

[Robert]

I find SFS 10.19 and Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 20 too smooth losing the edge of cymbals and lead guitar.

But also find SFS 140.19 Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 10 a little brittle and bright in the treble.

I'm now trying SFS 70.19 Q1 x 30 + xQ1 x 20 seems to be a good compromise but further listening happening.

Certainly worth trying out in different computer setups.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Great stuff, Robert.

I can concur with both you are saying. And something like the 70.19 could well be in the area of the better. Also, we already know from more recent past that the higher the SFS (all else the same) the more "bright" things become. This really is a "tuner" at this moment.

For me, with he Stealth III and most certainly also the Lush^2 + Blaxius^2 this expresses even more. And so much more that one can start to see how ir is really working. But that expresses in the lower regions. So exactly as you talk about "losing the edge of" which is quite literal because your "too smooth" indication, is what one sees happening at the far more square exhibit at the lower frequencies (like for synthesizers).

That all said, as per briefremark's (Ramesh') finding, making the hardware buffer's size smaller now is a 3rd dimension into this.The largest buffer (16ms) emphasizes whatever the SFS does for result (your post plus see above). Making that buffer 4ms and all seems to become more coherent and requires less (brain) attention. Sadly I am afraid that we can't all manipulate that hardware buffer. So I am talking about the NOS1's Driver Control Panel where it can be set, and it is not said that you can set this somewhere too. And if you can, will it ever work out the same ? (although I start to be more and more surprised how there can be such consensus over (now even hardware) settings which work out the same for so many). So if you can find one, try to lower it.

As always, thank you Robert,
Peter

[grom64]

Greetings, Peter!
Thanks for 2.10 !!!
At 32 GB, RAM increased to 25.
Freedom of sound is boundless!

[PeterSt]

Greetings, Peter!

Ha ! Long time !
I hope you have a nice winter over there.

Best regards,
Peter

[grom64]

Yes, a lot of time!
I am now in the southern region of Russia! 
I wish you health and success!

[PeterSt]

Hi All,

After trying the SFS of 80.19 for a small week, I noticed that too many albums received a "buzz" (as in buzzing sound). Not all, but some. I also think that the 80.19 is better than 140.19 (this could be personal, but say that the sound is a tad less "exaggerated" with 80.19).
I am now on 100.19 for a couple of days and it could be the best of both worlds ...

Peter

[Robert]

Peter,
        Funny you should mention buzzing I noticed this yesterday on Mark Knopflers new album first track.

Anyway I will try 100.19 SFS. Have you changed xQ1 for this setting.

I'm still running xQ1 at 20 prefer it over 10.

Robert 

[PeterSt]

Haha

Robert, Q1=30, xQ1=20. So nothing changed there.

Regards,
Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi there,

I also tried some different SQ settings during the last weeks. I got new, more voluminous speakers and therefore had to change something, because esspecially the basses became annoying sometimes.

So..., SFS=100.19 is much better than SFS=140.19, what I had before.

Nervous Rate is now down to 4 (it was betwenn 16 and 20,  what had a pretty big impact, when SFS was as high as 140.19 to make the sound a bit smoother). Now the lower values sound better, clearer without doing it too much.

Q1x=11 now, as I hadn’t so good results with higher valies like Q1x=20 (smearing a bit).

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Here we go again ...

I an copying from my current settings :


Ehm ...

So the text above is from around 6pm yesterday (today it sat still in my browser, and while I tried to obtain the data from my Mach III PC, nothing responded. In itself this is an other story, so I will let that be for an other post, elsewhere.
Fact is that this is from yesterday and that it does not try to outbetter Richard's post. with new settings.
So continuing :


Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5
SFS = 0.69
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
Core Appointment = 3-5
Nervous Rate = 10
Wallpaper On, no OSD feautures
(Driver NOS1 Control Panel buffer : 16ms.

This gives a complete different presentation again, and actually a more known from the past. But better again, IMO. Notice that this is a bit tough to judge, because so many things changed by now, hardware-wise. But main charactirestics :

- Unsurpassed better bass;
- Complete 3D behavior with about everything extending sideways from the speakers (more left than the left hand speaker, more right than the RH speaker).
- An again "more speed" perception but which is more palpable than the higher SFS settings (seems contradictory).

Fun for myself : I reasoned this in advance. Something like : Okay, after 10 years or so PeterSt maybe understands his software (approaches).

The new thinking is actually the smaller SFS again for reasons of better spread of noise. Think "overwhelming" the existing still present noise. I did this by leaving all else as it is

The trick is how to get there with the settings, without ending up in the same we already used for "years". So I only wanted to have the SFS down.
Well, that does not work because in "consistency" the software was (once again) not written for the contradictory settings (like large on one hand and small on the other).

Experimentation learns that an SFS of 0.69 is about the smallest one can get, but somehow taking into account the 0.19 thing (which undoubtedly makes no sense, but we arrived at that a little while ago), with the thinking that 1.19 is too large, so I applied half of the increase with 1. This gives 0.19+0.50 = 0.69.

This does not work because the volume now does not want to change (OK, one time). Now Q1 has to be further down and I did that in steps of 30, hence only adjusted the xQ1. 5 of that appears to be the minimum that all still works (7 works mostly but not always and 6 I did not try). Also, e.g. 1 does not give a better sound (the contrary). And thus :
Q1=30, xQ1=5.

This works, although there is always a small stutter at the volume increase.

The sound is so new and refreshing that I personally wonder what we have been doing lately.

In retrospection what Richard comes up with (which I thus only learned today), we can see a similarity in the Q1 needing to be lower. And to be honest, I started digging into the settings because actually 100.19 did not satisfy me either. Richard calls is smearing and it did not come to me like that, but my mentioned "buzzing" remained, which clearly is lesser with the SFS going higher. But the higher did not suit me any more either and thus something else had to change.

Now suppose Richard could try this briefly and he agrees without doubt, then I will unconditionally make the software work so it accepts the lower SFS settings (like 0.08 etc.) together with the other higher settings. And then we will have a SQ improvement for the next XXHighEnd version ...
Btw, I think those lower SFS settings can already be utilized, if only the volume does not need to change. But I never really listened to that, as not being able to change the volume leads to nothing.

And ... Thank you, Richard !
Peter

[Robert]

Certainly is an interesting sound even on my non Mack. All settings work fine. As you describe it certainly sounds like it.

Where have you set Max SFS? Don't know if this affects soundwise.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Where have you set Max SFS? Don't know if this affects soundwise.

Robert, that's set at "the same" (thus also 0.69). I don't know whether it makes a difference (it will be less convenient because at some stage you can't test the larger number unless you first reboot).

Regards and Happy New Year !
Peter

[Robert]

Happy new year and all. Gosh don't know but the new settings are amazing as we enter New Year celebrations.

And no odd glitches as per high SFS.

Everything performing perfectly. Off to hear a real band well a covers one but with real instruments. 

Robert 

[Tore]

Peter, your new settings is definitely no good match for the Stealth Mach 2.
I`m happy with my normal settings (see sign. )


Tore

[PeterSt]

Thank you very much for that feedback, Tore !

Yes, I can imagine this ti be very true. When I used the Mach II for an evening (described in that other topic) the very first I got rid of were those "new" settings. I ended up with that set with SFS=140.19, which to me feels in the same direction as what you currently use (as seen in your signature).

Kind regards and happy New Year !
Peter

[briefremarks]

So some of the new year celebrations ended up with a big music listening session.  Used Peter's new settings: Q1/xQ1 30/5; SFS 0.69.  Blaxius^2 and Lush^2 with "standard" settings.  SPECTACULAR!  Even more so as the SPL went up as the evening progressed.

Happy New Year again to everyone.  Wishing health, happiness, success, goodness to all on this forum!

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

first I repeat, what I have written you in the email yesterday, when I couldn’t enter the forum:

For the second day now I enjoy listening with the new SQ settings you recently suggested. In the beginning I was not sure, if for my setup with the new speakers it isn‘t a bit too much of the good: basses strong, accurate and punchy... The more I listen the more I love it this way! The highs are much clearer and the soundstage is tremendous!
I also tried slighly different settings for SFS, Q1x and Nervous Rate, but didn‘t find any better so far.

Yesterday evening I tried once more a slightly different SFS: 0.89  (=0.7 + 0.19). The highs are not as crisp and as sparkling as with 0.69, but the soundstage is still great it sounds a bit softer, more musical... in my setup.

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Hi Richard and Ramesh,

Ah, great. OK, so I will see if I can get the software to cooperate to have the lower SFS values with all else the same and nothing breaks.

Great thanks for your feedback.
Peter

[PeterSt]

Btw, with this setting, maybe for the first time I perceive a very genuine punch in the electric bass (for the string pluck).
Now I am confident that about all the people in the world may say that they had this 50 years ago already, but for those with the open baffle Orelo MKII (and Orelino just the same) this is just a tad more special; This is related to the seemingly impossibility to do so because of the lacking back chamber (no counter pressure). Still this appears now very well possible. So something in that area is now so ultimately fast (?) that the air itself provides this counter pressure. At least that is my idea with it.

N.b.: This is indeed relatively easy for a speaker with cabinet, but the enormous difference is the distortion level. Not that people should suddenly worry about this (you are (honestly) just used to it), but those with a speaker with cabinet can maybe envision how difficult it is for an open baffle speaker too imply the same literal punch. Well, as what has been proven with so many other things by now, it can all be controlled by very different means than we ever back could imagine.

Btw, this reminds me of the somewhat more turbulent times that Bert applied a change to the speakers, which I could do in software (always bit perfect). But the other way around just the same. So yes, really many things happened with the cooperation of all of us.

Happy New Year !
Peter

[phantomax]

Hello Peter,

Is it possible that the new settings provoke an inversion in phase? I ask you because after try them I perceived an unpleasant and very thin sound. After press invert phase things seem to have returned to normal. BTW the sound is very promising although more time is needed.
I remember having troubles with Phase Alignment and you suggested at that time I had something inverting phase in my chain but never found where.

Happy New Year!

Maxi

[PeterSt]

Hi there Maxi,

No, nothing changed explicitly with Phase. But, it always has been so that changes in SQ can be dedicated to Phase "perturbations". Do not think about "out of absolute phase" (which would be a 180- degree change) but merely think about changes all over the place and in a fashion which can't be grasped.
This sounds worse than it is, because it always has been so. It is only that it never really has been given a name.

Kind regards,
Peter

[phantomax]

Hi Peter,

the effect with previous settings was hardly noticeable ( I try Invert Phase from time to time. For me is some kind of panic button ) 

Best regards

Maxi

[PeterSt]

the effect with previous settings was hardly noticeable

Maxi, you mean the effect of Inverted Phase was not to noticable ?
If that is indeed what you mean then I will be very interested in tonight's playback session. It would indeed be so that it would be the first time that it really is obvious(ly noticeable).

Thanks !
Peter

[phantomax]

Maxi, you mean the effect of Inverted Phase was not to noticable ?

Peter, in any case much less obvious than with the latest adjustments.

Maxi

[listening]

Hi Peter,

they are excellent settings especially with the DAM and the Quad ESL. I can confirm the punch in the bass region . It's amazing and there is authentic rendering of music. I reactivated my SL6 after many years and I am amazed what monitors of this age can still do. I'm also driving the SL6 with the new settings - with excellent results.

Georg

[PeterSt]

Maxi, you mean the effect of Inverted Phase was not to noticable ?

Peter, in any case much less obvious than with the latest adjustments.

Maxi

Maxi, I tested this and had the impression that the sound got a bit more "brittle" over here. I am not sure though.
So as it looks, the other way around from your experience. And if true indeed, than one of us can have the absolute phase inverted (which easily can be me).

But really, I never had the idea it could be permanently audible for me;
I will be experimenting some more with it. At least it is interesting ...

Kind regards and thank you again,
Peter

[phantomax]

[/quote]
one of us can have the absolute phase inverted (which easily can be me).
[/quote]

When you drive your car into the highway and all the other cars come in front of you chances are that you took the wrong direction.  So I´m afraid that is me.

For the moment I am playing with phase inverted and everything is fine!

Thank you!

Maxi

[PeterSt]

Hi Maxi,

Right from the beginning with XXHighEnd (say within the year) it became obvious that once Q1 (which in the end also is a buffer somewhere) became too low, people observed an inside-out phase behavior. I guess that never changed (although today it would be about going from the higher SFS to a more extreme lower one).

The other day I also encountered such a sensation, and because it is less than a week ago (as far as I can tell now) it could be the same experience (as back than, as yours ?).

Why this happens is beyond me and all, but I suppose it has to be related to a more acurate representation of "the sound", whatever that exactly is. But if I observe the stage to be wider (more extending from the speakers) then in my book this will be about some form of accurace (better pinpointed "waves"). And that in itself could show the inverted phase better.

Point is (to some degree) that a proper absolute phase hardly can exist. This is mightly difficult to explain, but is already related to the response of mechanical and electrical devices in the recording chain, as well as in the playback chain. So if someone hits a drum, what part of the wave do you think is the first one with the highest excursion ? I say : this is random and depends on many things not under any one's control. Of course, the first wave front should be positive (more pressure) because in realtity that was so. But whether this shows in e.g. the digital file ? ... at random. And when this appears to be negative, then bad luck - then it (literally) sucks.

Point of course is that if one person hits a drum and the bass player is supposed to pluck his low E or whatever at the very same time, but should be of equal phase, at least at the attack. But there is already no way that will happen because of the behavior of the two too different instruments.
The same absolute phase in the sustain phase then ? Well, even with e.g. two bass players with the same bass instruments that would be the most difficult. If they are the slightest out of tune then within the second of that sustain they are out of phase.
Etc. etc. etc. and we don't even talk about how the various recording devices are electrically wired (half of them could work in opposite phase and if not half than maybe one, like you have the idea you have it wrong and we all have it right).

So that is my personal idea of the existence of it ...
... Which does not prevent from what you perceive is a generally known thing. If people only did not forget about it. And if what happens does not suit you, well, then you invert the phase ...

Regards,
Peter

[phantomax]

Hi Peter,
it may well be that my tympani are out of phase   

Thank you for your explanation!

Maxi

[BertD]

Me too...

Liking the 0.69 settings a lot too except for that "out of phase" kind of annoying twist like something is missing.

Used Arc Prediction Filtering (16x) for some time now but since I switched to Custom Filtering (High 29510) things returned to normal without losing the advantages of that much tighter bass.

I did also have added more gain to the lower section than I could bare before resulting in more weight and with punch without getting boomy or blown out bass notes.

This means tweaking the crossover range again but I already really like the tonal balance I am hearing now.

Don't mind my signature... its old and outdated for a long time!

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

With these settings, I too find that the sound is not cohesive so I tried inverting phase & it brings the cohesiveness back.

Wonder what could be the reason?

No complaints as I’m enjoying the SQ. The low end is just super.

Best regards,

Arvind

[BertD]

With these settings, I too find that the sound is not cohesive so I tried inverting phase & it brings the cohesiveness back.

Hey  Arvind,

I changed my Custom filter settings to [low] which brings back body and character to the music. At high or Arc Prediction the sound is too "technical"... at least here on my system.

Perhaps you'll like it more too?

Cheers,

Bert

[Robert]

Bert I tried your custom setting but went back to Arc Predict almost immediately. I was outvoted by 3 non HiFi people in the house. I did prefer Arc also. Good suggestion though.

I find custom filter seems to add something which masks the sound somewhat. I'd be wary of tweaking your speakers too soon. Guess you can always go back.

Robert

[arvind]

Hi Bert,

I am using custom filter high since some time. Low is nice too. However I still need to invert phase otherwise something is amiss in the music.

Best regards,

Arvind

[Nick]

Hi,

I have been playing with Peters new settings:

Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5
SFS = 0.69
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
Core Appointment = 3-5
Nervous Rate = 10
Wallpaper On, no OSD feautures

Sound is pretty superb, but felt voices were lacking just a little prominence and dynamic, as a result emotion was not quite as strong as it can be.

Changing q1 to 10 and xq1 to 15 has really bought back the emotion and presence. Everything else remains very enjoyable. Mybe bass pitch resolution is a shade more smeared but overall these setting are nice. Might be worth a try.

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5

Changing q1 to 10 and xq1 to 15

Hi Nick - I am sorry, but both end up at the result of 150, and I am not aware of any possible SQ influence by means of the individual settings of each.
This is for Kernel Streaming. For WASAPI the story is different ...

Best regards,
Peter

[Nick]

Hey Peter,

I almost asked in the last post if it were possible for different values of q1 and xq1, that make the same product for example 150, to sound different.

I have just spent some time a: b ing q1 X xq1 values that give a product of 150.

I still think I can hear some slight differences BUT its more difficult to pick out than I had thought origionally.

Perhaps I have a case of placebo going on 

Either way sound quality is really sublime, your settings are great 

Kind regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

[PeterSt]

I changed my Custom filter settings to [low] which brings back body and character to the music. At high or Arc Prediction the sound is too "technical"... at least here on my system.

Bert, Yes, you can very well be right. I already forgot about your description but had in mind the advised Custom Filter-Low setting and yesterday from the first second it all came to me as more musical. Maybe this does not 100% cover what you are saying, although it could when thinking of the "too technical" you refer to. Along with it, I have the idea it is more pleasant to listen to, while I not readily noticed downsides. Maybe a tad less spoken bass ?

Thanks !
Peter

[BertD]

Maybe this does not 100% cover what you are saying, although it could when thinking of the "too technical" you refer to. Along with it, I have the idea it is more pleasant to listen to, while I not readily noticed downsides. Maybe a tad less spoken bass ?

The bass is less "punchy" and "less clean/dry" with the [low] setting but the overall sound is more real and more pleasant to me. Arc Prediction is making me lower the volume because it gives an "annoying" pressure on my ears (playing loud trying to fill the missing something I guess...).

Need more listening sessions though (flipping phase makes a big difference but not equally for all settings).

If you try another setting than also try to invert or revert the phase with that setting... its result is not always better for all settings.

Bert

[numlog]

Anybody prefer not to use upsampling? (the question aimed more at DS DAC users)

I have trouble deciding which I prefer, upsampling is revealing, clinical (in a good way) but.... unnatural? dead? basic terms to describe complex sound is a bit pointless....
there is catch to this, lower sampling rates means different,lower buffer and SFS settings are possible so its hard to fairly compare when there are possible variables to the ''best'' settings depending on rate.
With Kernel streaming it only applies to buffer as lowest possible SFS works no matter what rate (so not a huge deal) but with WASAPI it is limited..
This is something that makes WASAPI special, and makes in my case special sound possible.
with no upsampling 1.51 SFS is possible versus 12.26 with 8X, with KS the choice of SFS resulted in different sound rather than better or worse but with WASAPI I notice distinctive improvement to timbre with the lower SFS, there is also typical SFS differences, I think the higher SFS have more space and open sound, lower more dense presentation.
This could all be imagination though 

[PeterSt]

No imagination, I think. Btw, if possible for your DAC, try to use KS Special Mode. If it works without ticks or buffer errors, it is "the best" (sadly not possible for NOS1 users).

Anyway, you are completely correct in your stance that the upsampling changes the buffer sizes inherently, etc. This is exactly why I created the NOS1 such that electrically this all does not matter (and the software cooperates  ).

Also notice that most DAC's will let themselves "overrule" for the filtering, hence, an e.g. 88.2 will not engage filtering for 44.1 (read : will not roll off under 22.05). This means that "our filtering" will be effective in maximum fashion. But if the DAC does not understand this way of working, then the overruling merely becomes "messing with". And then you will have quite contradictionary filters on top of it all. This is why a DAC actually should be Non Oversampling; now we can guarantee that our filters will be applied for 100% (not messed with even the slightest).

And oh, notice that each Q1 setting below zero, is a special application for the WASAPI engine. Maybe set xQ1 to 1 and Device Buffer Size to 1024 (I recall that ever back I made it for these settings and I forgot whether this is all taken into account). Minimum of Q1 for WASAPI is -4.

Have fun !
Peter

[CoenP]

Btw, if possible for your DAC, try to use KS Special Mode. If it works without ticks or buffer errors, it is "the best" (sadly not possible for NOS1 users).

like never possible?
 

When fiddling with the settings and ignoring the ticks (for a short time) running in KS Special mode produced the best sound I ever had. I guess we have to enjoy superb yet imperfect sound forever....

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen, you tempt me ...

But many years ago I worked on it for as long as was needed to find out that this is about a deep down Windows driver bug. This, with the notice that KS Special Mode is highly illegal to begin with, so there really won't be anyone feeling compelled to solve that bug. And when the driver is used in normal fashion, this bug doesn't surface ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

People shouldn't miss this.

[Robert]

Bert most certainly liking Custom Low setting now. Going back to Arc I can hear what you describe.
I have to ask are you still using barebone Intona?

Robert

[BertD]

I have to ask are you still using barebone Intona?

No Intona here ... haven't tried it for a while either.

Bert

[Robert]

I'm afraid the new low SFS which sounds amazing does not work well with 24/96/192 Hi res tracks from various albums. I had this problem some time back with low SFS and its returned. Some only play one track then stop. This is after loading whole album into Ram for all. Another only plays 2 tracks then stops. Black Sabbath Vol4 24/96 after the 2nd track distorts at the start of each track then comes right till the next track. KD Lang 24/96 did the same but did continue to play tracks with distortion at track starts after 2 tracks have played. No problems with 16/44 CD's.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Robert, I suppose this is the same problem as the Q1 x xQ1 being too high together with the low SFS. This means
a. lower the Q1 x xQ1;
b. I must solve the same problem (somehow).

I suppose this is related to processor speed as well (timing). But not sure ! Just wait until I solved it (hopefully).

Thank you for sharing !!
Peter

[numlog]

Also notice that most DAC's will let themselves "overrule" for the filtering, hence, an e.g. 88.2 will not engage filtering for 44.1 (read : will not roll off under 22.05). This means that "our filtering" will be effective in maximum fashion. But if the DAC does not understand this way of working, then the overruling merely becomes "messing with". And then you will have quite contradictionary filters on top of it all. This is why a DAC actually should be Non Oversampling; now we can guarantee that our filters will be applied for 100% (not messed with even the slightest).

This was really helpful advice, the biggest issue at 44.1 was bass, a lack of definition and extension. it must be as you say because 88.2, like 705.6, fixes this entirely. same benefits with much shorter buffer, along with generally nicer sound (less load?).

[phantomax]

if possible for your DAC, try to use KS Special Mode. If it works without ticks or buffer errors, it is "the best" (sadly not possible for NOS1 users).

Surfing the topic I found this that I've missed before so I gave it a try and the sound ...  ... ahh the sound is the most transparent and fluid than never before. The strings are more "stringy" to say it somehow.

Thank you guys for bring up this subject and thank you Peter for pointing it out for non NOS users. I had forgot this parameter for a long time. I tend to follow Peter's settings to the letter but I must bear in mind that my DAC is different.

Best regards

Maxi

[stoni]

Dear all, I’m in the process of tuning in the new Mach III from Peter, I'll post my impressions later .

But, Maxi, in this tuning proses, I would be happy to try Special Mode (SM) again, but can't find any settings that work without distortion. I originally preferred SM over Adaptive, but got used to Adaptive I suppose, and forgot all about SM. Do you have a SM-setting that works for you? Maybe open another tread on this…

Regards Stein

[phantomax]

Hello Stein,
 
My profile is updated and those settings work perfectly on my DAC. The best so far.

Regards

Maxi

[Nick]

Hi,

I have been playing with Peters new settings:

Q1 = 30
xQ1 = 5
SFS = 0.69
Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1
Core Appointment = 3-5
Nervous Rate = 10
Wallpaper On, no OSD feautures

Sound is pretty superb, but felt voices were lacking just a little prominence and dynamic, as a result emotion was not quite as strong as it can be.

Changing q1 to 10 and xq1 to 15 has really bought back the emotion and presence. Everything else remains very enjoyable. Mybe bass pitch resolution is a shade more smeared but overall these setting are nice. Might be worth a try.

Nick.

Peter hi,

I am back to this point about  q1 and q1x again,  where sound changes for different values of
q1 and q1x values which produce the same mathematical product.

I'v been playing using q1 30 and q1x 10.
Changing to q1 15 and q1x 20, "definitely" changes sound. The presentation is much clearer and noticeably more dynamic, emotional and musical with the latter setting. Since I last posted above on this, the resolution of my PC has majorly improved, and its now very easy to hear the difference between the setting. The change in sound is repeatable when switching between the settings, q1 15 and q1x 20 just sound so much more musical.

It might be worth looking at how the parameter(s) are passed to the XX Engin and or how they are handled internally something perhaps not behaving as intended with the potential for better sound with certain settings.

Kind regards,

Nick.

[Robert]

Hi Nick, I will try what you suggest but is your signature up to date especially OS version and Xx version?

Robert

[Robert]

Actually does sound better in every way.

[briefremarks]

Tried Q xQ1 at 30 x15.  Very nice SQ.  This combination along with the new Lush^2 settings is very, very good.

[Nick]

Hi Nick, I will try what you suggest but is your signature up to date especially OS version and Xx version?

Robert

Robert hi,

You are right, all up to date now.

Interesting that you hear differences too and feel q1 15, q1x20 to be the better settings.

Either we both have a common problem with our systems or something is not working as expected. Either way for now q1 15 and q1x 20 is definitely favourite here 

Regards Nick.

[Nick]

Ramesh hi,

Can you hear any difference between q1 30, q1x 10 and q1 15, q1x 20. The latter sounds really nice here.

Your system is very similar so it would be useful to understand if you hear a difference too.

Regards, Nick.

[briefremarks]

Nick,

Listened last evening to small jazz ensembles, large orchestral pieces, other stuff.  Q1=15, xQ1 = 20 sounds really good.  I didn't do an immediate comparison with Q1=30 xQ1=5 which is where I had settings before.  My quick impression is that the 15 x20 setting is overall better: dynamics, balance, separation, imaging.  I will listen for a few days with your settings and then switch back and see, but given how good the SQ is, I may never switch back!!

R.

[PeterSt]

Peter hi,

I am back to this point about  q1 and q1x again,  where sound changes for different values of
q1 and q1x values which produce the same mathematical product.

I'v been playing using q1 30 and q1x 10.
Changing to q1 15 and q1x 20, "definitely" changes sound. The presentation is much clearer and noticeably more dynamic, emotional and musical with the latter setting. Since I last posted above on this, the resolution of my PC has majorly improved, and its now very easy to hear the difference between the setting. The change in sound is repeatable when switching between the settings, q1 15 and q1x 20 just sound so much more musical.

Hi there Nick,

Possibly you thought I was ignorantly silent, but this is not so. Instead I thought to need really a few spare hours to investigate this in the program, which I just now attempted ...

First off, I right away tried to hear what you hear, but it is too much apples and oranges for me because I'd need to change the "product of the factor" to be higher, which I already don't want; I see that others easily skip this phenomenon, or even skip your subject and find the higher product / resulting number better, but I can't go for that (still working on the 12/24 for me new processor and its best sound ever by now, for me).
And exchanging my 30x5 for 5x30 does not seem to do much.
One (very) funny thing : I was just looking up the numbers (like 30x5) to be very sure and see that I left it at 5x30. Is that fun or is it not ...

Investigating the real impact is too difficult. Already the Q1 is used throughout in the program which, mind you, is all about WASAPI and how "Engine3" ever started its life as that (WASAPI playback). So if Q1 occurs 1000 times in the program, it is 900 times in vain for today's subject because you and me are not using WASAPI. But finding that proper context in the program is too difficult because the program is too large (60K C++ program lines for this audio engine only).
So I gave up on it.
But also with a real reason ...

I see that Q1 is used to initialise timers for WASAPI. Btw, this is all (still) in today's secrecy because nobody uses (or can use I'd say) WASAPI the way I do it, which sheerly springs from me being 18 months ahead of everyody and the particular audio stack not being fully developed yet while I already started with it (when Windows Vista came about). Now, the fact that WASAPI can not be used for playback when its relevant services have been shut off in Minimized OS Mode (they are indeed with WASAPI services set to shut off in XXHighEnd's Settings), does (apparently) not prevent the initialisation to go ahead with everything, that possibly really setting timers which ARE there to let respond the OS differently when Audio Playback is in order (read : this dedicates to Audio). So Yes Nick, Q1 alone can very well influence SQ. I actually set myself to an "it will" because I could like it.

Like it ?
Well, we thought to know the SQ parameters by now a little, but it appears someone just found a new dimension within it.
Q1 on its own could "apply" a little of what is applied to WASAPI when used, but now it is separated from WASAPI itself. Read : buffer sizes which are influenced by Q1 explicitly for WASAPI, are now NOT in order when xQ1 is involved (only the product of the both (together with Device Buffer Size !!) is relevant) BUT the timing applied to the OS still happens. Not all the timing, but some part of it. This could be seen as "response resolution" which is within our Clock Resolution which has a life on its own (and was invented later than when we started to use WASAPI) and is explicitly not about that Clock Resolution itself, which is *also* controlled by WASAPI.



So as you see, complex stuff.

If anything, the lower Q1 would be the better one. This is a bit my own theory, but is also a remainder of the WASAPI era, although thus back then mixed with other buffer settings (plus a few miles less knowledge of it all).

Now why was my own sound so outrageously good yesterday. Maybe coincidence. But trouble is : I forgot when I set these settings, which also is related to rebooting and how they could have gone back with e reboot without saving first (of course I started with checking this out when your first posts about this emerged).
One thing I have in mind for very sure : the best sound I have now emerged 3 days ago after a reboot, but this was a special reboot which applied something special ... new to 2.11 ...


Thank you Nick !
Peter

PS: I notice that a year after, we are still not finished with exploring 2.10, right ? haha

[Nick]

Hey Peter,

I had guessed that you might have been looking at the possible reasons for the SQ differences. 60k lines of C that is some program.  It's a facinating explanation of what could be happening, thank you.

So I think you are saying that buffer size is the simple product of q1 an xq1, but q1 is also used elsewhere in the engine by itself to influance timing. Now you have explained this it may make sense in terms of what I hear. The SQ difference I get when selecting a lower q1 value (of course whilst ensuring the q1, xq1 product remains the same) is similar in character to changing the timer resolution setting.

It's good to know my hearing is not changing slightly each time q1 and xq1 "pairs" are changed 

One thing I have in mind for very sure : the best sound I have now emerged 3 days ago after a reboot, but this was a special reboot which applied something special ... new to 2.11 ...

I am really looking forwards to this, I cannot wait.....

Kr,

Nick.

[Robert]

I find this setting Q1 at 5 and xQ1 30 is even better than the opposite. I'm currently finding Xxhighend is very responsive to Alt commands and almost responds immediately.

Still running custom filters Low 705600. Differences between filters easily noticable.

Robert

[Rmalits]

Hi there,

since a few weeks I am using the new settings for Q1 and Q1x:
15 x20. With the small SFS = 0,69 the sound is lot better now, more precise and dynamic. The sound stage improved too.
Before that parameter change the sound was a bit „smearing“ and I wasn‘t sure about my new speakers...

Thanks a lot to all of you who found these new Q1/Q1x settings!

During the last months I also tried different values for balanced load between 8 and 16. I ended up with 12.

Kind regards
Richard

[Nick]

Peter hi,

I think I may have come across another music initialization condition that could be of use for sound quality, similar to the q1 q1x setting further up in this thread.

Over the past couple of months I have noticed that my system always has a particually live sound (eg extra dymanic, strong presence and very nice highs) when I first boot everything up and play the first few tracks each day. I could not pinpoint when this nice initial sound stopped but later in a listening session, although the sound is still very very good, the super nice initial sound is gone.

Whilst doing some equlisation testing I stumbled on a way to swich this nice initial sound on and off. I wounder, if this also works for you and if might be able to pinpoint / exploit what is going on. It seems like playing a 192k with no upsampling / arc prediction could be resetting something important to sound quality that makes the sound quality of 44.1k 705.6k upsampled tracks beter when played straight afterwards.


First getting the not so nice sound.

Play any 44.1k sample track at 705.6k with arc prediction and whilst playing change volume down then up a 1.5 db click whilst listening. Now stop playback and play the next track at you normal volume.  This gives the not so nice sound for me.

With the sound now not so nice play any 44.1k track you know the sound of especially well to see how it sounds (this will be your track B in the next stage that you should compare how it sounds now with nice sound I hope you get from the next step).

(If the above process does not result in the not so nice sound for you, maybe just listen to you test track B after a long playback session of a few hours and then try the next step.)

To get the nice sound.

First play any 192k track (track A), importanly set arc prediction OFF and with NO upsampling ie 192k samples per sec going to the dac. Now stop track A playing and select track B in your playlist (the track you selected that you know very well). Play this track with arc prediction back ON and back at 705.6k samples per second, and listen to the changed sound. Here there is a quite a significant difference with track B now being much more present and musical, no decernable down sides. If there are more tracks following track B in your playlist these will also playback with the nice sound.

My XX settings are pretty much identical to your signature and are up to date in my signature

Could this be useful ?

Best regards,

Nick.

[Robert]

Hi Nick interesting. Some of us went back to custom settings preferred to Arc. I think this was at the time you made some changes back in March this year. I still prefer Custom settings low 705600. Peter's settings online are out of date. Probably best to wait for next version 2.11 which will have even different settings I'm guessing. But you are right the sound does go off somewhat after fresh bootup, although I find it ok for a day at least.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Hey Nick - Not sure whether I comprehend all of that, but I feel the gist and may be able to find out myself blindly
… by now.

You will discover a new SQ feature in 2.11 which looks mighty much similar to what you describe, with the difference that I know what it is doing internally in the program. I still would not be able to reason any culprit or explicit "feature" as such, but it is controllable and looks to have the same behavior as your finding as of now.
In my case the sound changes so drastically that it factually requires different settings elsewhere (like a new PC or new DAC - to name something - LOL).

You will see …

Meanwhile I will try to absorb what you laid out. Maybe it can be automated. And let's agree that it can't become more mad if these matters help consistently. 

PS: You are mad as well; how else could you find out.

Regards,
Peter

[Nick]

Peter hi,

You will discover a new SQ feature in 2.11 which looks mighty much similar to what you describe, with the difference that I know what it is doing internally in the program. I still would not be able to reason any culprit or explicit "feature" as such, but it is controllable and looks to have the same behavior as your finding as of now.
In my case the sound changes so drastically that it factually requires different settings elsewhere (like a new PC or new DAC - to name something - LOL).

I'm really looking forwards to 2.11, it sounds like there is going to be some real fun using it.

Transparency and live qualities have progressed so far in the last 2 years with your new cables, latest XX versions and 621 based PCs. I don't think it would have been so easy to be sure of the changes in sound quality in this post before but now it just stands out so clearly. Iv been trying it out some more this morning, once you know its there its hard to listen without the nice sound set. I hope its possibly for it to somehow be built into the way XX initiates playback. Its already becoming a bind playing the 192k file and changing settings backwards and forwards.

PS: You are mad as well; how else could you find out. 

Haha, yes I think I might be. Its been an obsession lately wringing sound quality out of my system. Mainly PC and Orelo setup work but certainly worth the effort. This SQ thing showed up I was when repeatedly playing 192k sweep files to EQ my bass and listening for SQ changes 

A slightly different topic but I think another factor that impacts the SQ 621 boards when they used from cold is the oscillator. Its located under the chipset heatsink and that whole area goes from ambient to circa 60-70 degrees as the board warms up. I am pretty sure this changes the oscillator speed as the temp goes up proberbly by something of the order of -100 to 400hz. In my case this reduces amplitude of highs and increase bass slightly. I prefer sound cold but in other systems the speed change could just as likley to improve sound depending on the clock speeds of other parts of the system. Im running with a fan on the chipset's heat sink just now but a more perminant fix is coming 

I hope this 192k nice sound thing can be reproduced and proves useful.

Kind regards,

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Hey Nick,

A slightly different topic but I think another factor that impacts the SQ 621 boards when they used from cold is the oscillator.

I prefer sound cold but in other systems the speed change could just as likley to improve sound depending on the clock speeds of other parts of the system.

Right. This is exactly what I was referring to (or tried to) - that it requires different settings elsewhere, which such a thing is in order (or seems to be in order). Of course I could try to reverse the clock speed into some negative cycle, but then I better work on the perpetuum mobile first.
Anyway, envision :

This heating up is done on purpose and it creates a stable environment because eventually saturated. Now adjust the environmental parts to it … (which can just as well be a USB cable configuration - anything).

And oh, to be 100% clear : I don't think I like the sound such a tweak creates, myself. But therefore it now is about finding that other tweak. So our approach is different, the solution is therefore different as well, but the thinking is the same. Well, as usual.

Best regards,
Peter

[manisandher]

I think I may have come across another music initialization condition that could be of use for sound quality...

Thanks for sharing Nick. But I hope you don't mind if I give this one a miss - I think it'd be the straw that breaks this particular camel's back 

Mani.

[Nick]

I think I may have come across another music initialization condition that could be of use for sound quality...

Thanks for sharing Nick. But I hope you don't mind if I give this one a miss - I think it'd be the straw that breaks this particular camel's back 

Mani.

Mani,

Its a nice sound, problem is when I have been listening today I keep thinking wouldn't this be great with the nice sound, then its Click click click click.... click click click ..... click click click ..... ahhhhhhh ! Definitely too much setting up so don't blame you.

I hope that it works at Peter's (dont even know if it will be repeatable in other systems) and that Peter feels its worth / can be incorporated into XX. Although it sounds like Peter has way way more in store for SQ in 2.11. Can't wait 

Nick.

[Nick]

Hi Nick interesting. Some of us went back to custom settings preferred to Arc. I think this was at the time you made some changes back in March this year. I still prefer Custom settings low 705600. Peter's settings online are out of date. Probably best to wait for next version 2.11 which will have even different settings I'm guessing. But you are right the sound does go off somewhat after fresh bootup, although I find it ok for a day at least.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Im back to straight arc prediction again at the moment. I managed to get the highs very detailed but smooth here so unfiltered is working nicely at the moment.

I am certainly looking forwards to Peter releasing 2.11. That is a strong statement he made above about being like a new PC or Dac. Its going to be fun  .

Kind regards,
Nick

[PeterSt]

That is a strong statement he made above about being like a new PC or Dac.

Am I not always full of strong statements ?

Last night went a bit different than what I expected of it.

The day before I had been playing fairly daft electronic music. Now mind you, electronic music as such is about the farthest from what I like. On a side note, you must know what it is first. This is not Vangelis or Klaus Schulze, no, it is (in my view) the most stupid computer fabriqued repetitive (not)music, most often from German origin (think Kraftwerk and you know the direction). Some times such an album ends up in my playlist because I tend to try a lot which looks to be OK from a distance.

Track titles speak (of nothing) and the Cover … could attract me. Track lengths look dangerous(ly way too long to remain of interest throughout).
And so I found my XXHighEnd at track 03, yesterday. Not completely ignorantly I pressed Play on it again, because I was prepared for my tweak (which I, btw, only know for a week or so, and which requires preparation which I forget half of the time - forgot it last night as well).

I didn't know what I was hearing.
From a stupid nothing it had turned into an enormously interesting sounds and soundscapes all over from left to right and in to out and what not. And it occurred to me that even that 14 minute track seems to have passed by in 5 minutes. It went straight into my "Nice Stuff" Gallery for any next time - being sure that this next time I will wonder what happened to me putting it in there. Btw, I recall that the one but last track was nothing much after all; the first two tracks I never played last night, so skip those for safety. Anyway, this album, so you can try it for yourself :

https://listen.tidal.com/album/39109162

I bet you all that you'll regard this the biggest nonsense ever. Or close to it. But not last night over here ...

[Nick]

Peter,

I tried Atmos track 3. It presents as quite bland here with a too heavy drum beat at 55hz. I definatly can see where the performers are going with it and get a sense of what it could be but the sparkle and shimmer in the mid / top end electronic voice sounds never quite happens to make the track pop.

Now if 2.11 can make this spell binding that would certainly be something very special...

Nick.

[PeterSt]

Hi Nick,

Nice that you tried. But yes, if I interpret you well, you really respond to it like I did the first time listening to it. The spellbound thing would indeed be what I dedicate it at listening that second time.

It is as if the resolution doubles without being annoying. A gland "stream" of highs (showing a mere hiss sound) turns into the individual fast on/off sounds and because this is different in the left channel from the right, the sound gets very spacious and holographic. Already the fact that left is different from right in this aspect, adds a dimension.

Something else, which not often is a subject, is how tracks like these can survive their length. So for this type of music, always the same (what about Autobahn, right ?) it is do or die for the nuances. I have something like : we MUST know at all times that no artist makes something really A-B repeating throughout 15 minutes of track. There has to be a build up or else each measure should be slightly different from the previous. Well, if that can't be perceived, you miss out.
This is such an example. It is in there and only theoretically you know there should be more in it. But you surely are not going to try to squeeze out more if you don't know for 100% sure there has to be more in it. But for me it *is* a kind of measure whether all is OK with the system.

This latter surely plays a role when I play something I put to my Demo Gallery ever back, and today I perceive it as way too long and always the same from the start. I definitely know myself of not putting such a track to my Demo Gallery. Still it is in there. So what changed since …
A cable ? the Lush^2 configuration ? Something in the software ? a software setting which improved something when I applied it, but was detrimental to other matters ? (and with the uncomfortable knowing that it went for the worse)

It also goes the other way around, but this is more difficult to catch : An album like this does not go to Nice Stuff and no track ends up in Demo (it does not even survive track 03). Will it get an other chance ? No, probably not. Unless an other album of the same artist makes it to Nice Stuff etc. so I might revisit others too, later.
Btw in this case, might you be interested, I obtained it from Tidal because of this one with 5 out of 9 tracks in my Demo Gallery (which really is many, for percentage) :
https://listen.tidal.com/album/38757515
https://listen.tidal.com/album/38756661 (bonus EP)
If all is right you like this much better from the start.

Peter

[PeterSt]

And exchanging my 30x5 for 5x30 does not seem to do much.

Lately something annoyed me. And yesterday with a 2nd album in a row, both from the early 70's, I heard a flanging effect in the highs. Possibly with the second (Triumvirat) I heard it because I heard it in the first Occupants from Interplanetary Craft - performed by The Carpenters).
I looked at my settings because I found it too odd, and my eye fell on the 5x30 again, of which I earlier had said not to notice much difference between the two (which surely should technically result in the same "treatment" as long as it is about Kernel Streaming (not WASAPI !)).

And then the problem was gone.

Extra odd (for me and XXHighEnd) could be that for WASAPI the values of Q1 (so Q1 alone and not related to xQ1 as multiplier) indeed would incur for such an effect when set from 0 to -4. Not that I ever heard it, but theoretically, yes.

I also recall an other setting which implies a "randomizing" effect. But  I forgot which that was and I don't see myself using any of that. Possibly it does not exist any more … It should be the ClockRes but I'd need to dive in the code to unveil it again.

Peter

[briefremarks]

Peter,

I have had Q1/xQ1 at 5x30 for a while and did not notice any flanging effect on the highs.  I have gone back and forth between 5x30 and 15x20 mostly to see if I can affect some "scratches" that happen occasionally because of USB errors.  Even after installing a dedicated line, Lush^2 is very sensitive to LED lights, dimmers, etc.

R.

[PeterSt]

with a 2nd album in a row, both from the early 70's, I heard a flanging effect in the highs.

Update : The reason appeared to be something else;
It was the Custom Filter (set at Low). So I guess that we are able to hear so much through now, that this becomes apparent. And I suppose if you once hear it, you can't get rid of it any more.

Regards,
Peter

[Robert]

Peter have you gone back to Arc Prediction? I have and prefer it over custom filter settings from low to high.

But are you running 2.11 so we may be behind on the settings front.

Robert

[PeterSt]

Robert, yes I am on Native Arc Prediction. But some times I try Custom when I don't like something. Always to no avail.

Best regards,
Peter