Hi Mike,
I am sorry, I didn't see your remarks about that at first. I guess I got distracted.
Allow me to say this is not the place (nor thread) to work out these things. So please post it on phasure.com where people may use Vaio's (although I did not perceive so). For now though :
I'd dedicate it to USB in combination with something on the Vaio. You are sure not the first one with such problems in general, but I count you as the second only for XXHE. You won't have USB disks conneceted as well, do you ? if so, that will be your problem.
The Buffalo sure isn't related, or it is the USB connection again (I have one myself, but SPDIF connected).
In order to find out using the latest version (0.9x-5b) :
- Do not use the OSD Running Time;
- Try the different Core Appointment schemes;
- Set the priority denoted with "higher" to Real Time and the one denoted "lower" to Lowest.
- Use Unattened and Stop Services.
- You may set Split File at the lowest of 12MB.
There is more, but if this makes a difference we can proceed from there.
But please, not here, ok ?
Thanks,
Peter
I am sorry, I didn't see your remarks about that at first. I guess I got distracted.
Allow me to say this is not the place (nor thread) to work out these things. So please post it on phasure.com where people may use Vaio's (although I did not perceive so). For now though :
I'd dedicate it to USB in combination with something on the Vaio. You are sure not the first one with such problems in general, but I count you as the second only for XXHE. You won't have USB disks conneceted as well, do you ? if so, that will be your problem.
The Buffalo sure isn't related, or it is the USB connection again (I have one myself, but SPDIF connected).
In order to find out using the latest version (0.9x-5b) :
- Do not use the OSD Running Time;
- Try the different Core Appointment schemes;
- Set the priority denoted with "higher" to Real Time and the one denoted "lower" to Lowest.
- Use Unattened and Stop Services.
- You may set Split File at the lowest of 12MB.
There is more, but if this makes a difference we can proceed from there.
But please, not here, ok ?
Thanks,
Peter
dogber1 said:
It's odd you can't hear the difference - for me it was like night & day - Iv'e been waiting a long time for my digital setup to sound and musical as my old analogue system from the early 80's and for me I just about reached that goal
I wonder what equipment you are using ?
Anyway - if you can't hear any difference, lucky you - I guess u can be completely content with the sound you already have.
I'm still driven to make it sound even better - I guess just because I believe that it's possible.
cheers
mike
The notion that some crappy user mode application can magically improve the playback quality is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. This is just another kind of snake oil where the claimed effects clearly belong into the world of self-delusional superstitions. And I should know since I've acquired some intricate knowledge of the sound subsystem in Windows when developing my driver.
dogber1 said:
It's odd that ur so dismissive of this software and the people that like it, cos people like us - who think we can hear differences between different resistors etc - are just the sort of nerdy geeks that would be interested in ur software - everyone else thinks itunes is just fine - so I don't really understand ur marketing strategy.
over & out
mike
The difference between this situation and in believing in the differences between resistors is that there is nothing remotely analogue about how the playback chain works. The software stack is buffered and slaved to the hardware clock in the soundcard, so its timing is irrelevant (you'd certainly hope so, since the software running on top of a complex OS is never going to be timing-accurate). Bit-perfect really is as good as it can do. 'Improving' on bit-perfect is for reverb processors and fuzzboxes.
Nobody can thoroughly disprove that a particular resistor is more accurate than another, because the our view of the situation necessarily relies on measurements which are limited in their accuracy. However, it is trivially obvious through basic reasoning that this type of software can't be an improvement. Claiming that XXHE is more accurate than other proven, bit-perfect playback programs is simply ridiculous - to a degree infinitely beyond snake-oil audio products. Those expensive wooden blocks you can buy to put on your CD player might, in fact, be really good at stopping dark matter particles from solar winds from hitting the DAC chip and subtly altering the sound. Or something. I can't prove that they're not. On the other hand, the claims made by XXHE are lacking any credibility.
Trusting one's ears over common sense is a lifestyle decision that anyone is free to make. But trying to convince other people that there is any good, objective reason to do the same is trying to convert them to your religion.
Nobody can thoroughly disprove that a particular resistor is more accurate than another, because the our view of the situation necessarily relies on measurements which are limited in their accuracy. However, it is trivially obvious through basic reasoning that this type of software can't be an improvement. Claiming that XXHE is more accurate than other proven, bit-perfect playback programs is simply ridiculous - to a degree infinitely beyond snake-oil audio products. Those expensive wooden blocks you can buy to put on your CD player might, in fact, be really good at stopping dark matter particles from solar winds from hitting the DAC chip and subtly altering the sound. Or something. I can't prove that they're not. On the other hand, the claims made by XXHE are lacking any credibility.
Trusting one's ears over common sense is a lifestyle decision that anyone is free to make. But trying to convince other people that there is any good, objective reason to do the same is trying to convert them to your religion.
Wingfeather said:
The ultimate purpose of hifi for me is to derive pleasure via my ears - so what I perceive via my ears is the only thing that really matters so in that sense XXHE, resistors & anything else are in the same category.
Have you heard this program ? If you have and did not hear any difference - fine. But if you have not heard it, your theoretical opinions about what can or cannot be are for me are just totally meaningless.
I will absolutely agree to that!
The case which is not very clear: The straight scientists in electronics are thinking that everything they don't understand (up to now!!!), i mean everything what cannot be measured (up to now!!!) or what they haven't heard at university cannot be true at all! That was at every time wrong - in every science.
Peter does something wrong in my opinion. He is on a seriously way, but he wants to convince people who are thinking that they still know everything about audio and (or) coding that there could be something more. And he does that in a very friendly but not very usefull way. He is talking too much about no "hard" facts to people who can only understand this kind of facts. Like a teacher who could not good explain. But he is not a teacher - he is a developer.
I could listen to Peters player up to now only on my "third" class (XP) environment. The result is excellent. I am shure so far: The best sounding player near cics'
Everybody who don't want to listen to phenomenons in audio because of the reasons I pointed out beyond must not do that. And he must not violate anybody who is putting his whole energy in things which please him and other people.
All true ...
But for now, give me this credit (or not, if you don't like to) :
I bought for 10K worth of measurement equipment that even so by official (AES17) measurement means cannot measure what this is all about. Or at least, so far, nobody knows how to measure it. However, I set my mind to it, and I *will* dig something out of it. I will, because it is there. It is too obvious.
And honestly, after this few years of experience I know how to control it, but I can't tell what "it" is.
Earlier I was more sure that it is just jitter than I am now. This is kind of proven by a DAC I created, which should have a few ps of jitter only at the output stage, and has the most stable I/V stage thinkable, but the (software) influence is there as always.
Still it (obviously) can be jitter impeeded only, but then, how ever in the world it works, it walks right through everything.
Working on the measurements ...
Peter
Peter you don't have to tell - you have to do
Furthermore: I think you and everybody is influenced on the word "jitter". Everybody on your website is using the word "jitter" for every difference he could hear. I think this theme is on Guido Tent or Lars Claussen. Wingfeather (I think) has pointed on this ...
I think you could even look at the step response of your used speakers - terrible in almost cases. But no reason for this only fact to sound in any way...
I am shure you can here differences - but jitter? That's not the point. Give it a name like you like - but go on...
My opinion: Everybody who is really interested in music (PC) and the best form of reproduction:
- Read Cics
Art of buidling ...
- Cics is the upsamling protectionist - coded the best upsampling player (XXHE is doing the opposite: And NOS-...)
- think over cics thoughts in hardware and understand his way of doing this !!!
- think over that he is doing this with a very kind of perfect modified XP - but only XP!
- think about doing this hardware lesson with Win7 (or for a short time Vista)
- think about doing your new knowledge with not upsampling XXHE in comparison to the other way: cplay
If you want do do it with Vista, please look at that. This beta SP is a reaction on the Win7 latencies:
Vista SP2 beta
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.