[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtddiver /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are supposed to influence jitter, and this influences the sound. I don't understand what's so hard to fathom about that.

Hundreds of controlled, clinical listening tests have shown that the wish-fullfillment fantasies of audiophiles are much more audible than jitter.

P

 

[tosehee]

So, if I get this correctly, this player reduces the jitter and hence increase the quality of the sound?

or

is it the opposite? It mocks with the music, thus making in non bit perfect, and the jitter is also increased, but our ears like this?


BTW, I am not being sarcastic here. i really want to know what route the creator(s) has gone to create so-called "better" player without going outside of the boundaries that most audiophiles believe in.

 

[mojave]

You guys are asking some good questions. There are changes that one can make to affect sound that are system dependent and don't change whether or not the sound stream is bit perfect. Opamps are one example. Two people can have the same soundcard or DAC but can prefer different opamps. The sound is definitely different but who can say which opamp provides the "correct" sound.

Many of us change opamps and uses the one we prefer in our system. Tube rolling is another example of changing the sound for better or worse in order to meet the preferences of the listener.

Peter, the developer of XXHighEnd, has found that there are certain settings that tend to affect the sound differently depending on the soundcard, DAC, amps, speakers, etc. Rather than arbitrarily use one setting for his software, he has allowed the listener to change the settings. Some might notice a difference and some might not. I don't know what the settings affect, but they might change latency, CPU load, memory use, etc. in order to affect the sound.

Peter probably won't say what these settings do in order to protect his intellectual property. His software is still in beta so maybe we will know more once the official version is released. I don't think the developers of Amarra are letting out any secrets about their software.

 

[leeperry]

yeah, that's the problem...XP in KS *is* bitperfect, WASAPI as well..there's too much magical thinking around those better-than-bitperfect players.

op-amps have a magic thing to them, granted! but these are analog devices....it's a far stretch to compare op-amps and tubes to digital bit-perfectness through an audio renderer.

I wonder if Peter could recommend some third party cables to use w/ his player for (bit-)perfect synergy? is the TWcu from cryo-parts OK? or better use the highest grade from Monster Cable? or maybe Stefan Audio?

I don't need technical fluff explanations(who does?

), just a recommandation will do.

 

[Vitor Machado]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtddiver /img/forum/go_quote.gif But you could very well have a bit-perfect but jittery stream that wouldn't sound very good.

As far as I know at least, jitter is introduced on the DAC, so it's not related to the player.
Jitter usually has to do with a clock signal, so it's completely beyond the player's reach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Peter, the developer of XXHighEnd, has found that there are certain settings that tend to affect the sound differently depending on the soundcard, DAC, amps, speakers, etc. Rather than arbitrarily use one setting for his software, he has allowed the listener to change the settings. Some might notice a difference and some might not. I don't know what the settings affect, but they might change latency, CPU load, memory use, etc. in order to affect the sound.

Yes, but the player cannot change your DAC, amp, sound card...

Latency has no influence in sound quality (That's why when we use ASIO, we couldn't care less for the low latency thing, that's not the reason we use it).
CPU load and memory usage...

It's almost like saying if you put your program on some memory area, it will sound better than if you put it on some other area.


I think some of you might still be missing the actual meaning of the term "bit-perfect".
To sum it up again: Between the signal generated by the player, and the DAC, the bits should be same as in the original media.
At this stage the sound is not analog yet so there's no jitter.

 

[dugq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Peter probably won't say what these settings do in order to protect his intellectual property. His software is still in beta so maybe we will know more once the official version is released. I don't think the developers of Amarra are letting out any secrets about their software.

This is what I don't understand. I've used some very expensive software, including professional studio and video editing suites, yet I've never come across anonymous sliders which are too secret to give any idea what they do. There is simply no rationale for it, we're not talkng about releasing the source code. Do Avid not care about protecting their intellectual property, nor Digidesign?

 

[dtddiver]

Whenever XXHE comes up as an issue, people are very very patronising, sarcastic and whatnot. Most of them have probably never tried the software in question properly.

The demo of XXHE is fully working with no limits except that it shuts down after an hour or so, and you have to restart it. So please do try for yourself, then perhaps the discussion can be better and more interesting. Personally, I never bash stuff I haven't tried or haven't read or haven't shagged or haven't drunk or eaten.

 

[leeperry]

Whenever XXHE comes up as an issue, there's always some (freshly registered) third party ppl who sound like they're part of a sect...and tell the skeptics that there's no need for any explanation whatsoever, and that all that is required is to listen to their heart...I mean "to listen".

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

 

[dtddiver]

Hey, I registered because I was looking for a new sound card, and then I saw this thread. I am not member of a sect, I merely like how XXHE sounds. Try for yourself, then I will gladly take anything you say about the player seriously.

 

[leeperry]

I did try it, and it sounded processed(EQ/reverb)...then I found a post from Peter on computer(smokey)audiophile.com where he was saying that indeed some massive DSP was taking place.

I can't really be hassled looking for it atm, as Peter has been very prolific on this uber-snake oil website....but I'll try to find it again.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtddiver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, I registered because I was looking for a new sound card, and then I saw this thread. I am not member of a sect, I merely like how XXHE sounds. Try for yourself, then I will gladly take anything you say about the player seriously.

That guy is best ignored. As you can see by his response, he has nothing to back up his postings yet he still keeps arguing. Welcome to Head-fi.

 

[leeperry]

ah well, computeridiophile.com is beyond my capabilities...reading 700 messages from Peter is too painful to find that post where he clearly says that he does a lot of filtering.

this one guy says he can hear difference between WAV and FLAC: EAC - Trojan | Computer Audiophile
Quote:

I used to believe for example , that high quality .flac files (such as from HD Tracks) were NOT "lossless" as claimed by everyone, as they always sounded slightly dull to my ears arter reconversion to .wav. Also with files that I converted to .flac,then reconverted to .wav. Since undertaking the PC dampening measures

and here Peter says: XXHighEnd Application | Computer Audiophile
Quote:

a random CD was burned, while (without sound) XX was playing another CD. One of these persons used 3 versions of XX (all with different "jitter signature"), and burned three CD's this way. After this, he could sort out the XX version which played during burning, and he listened with his car radio.

Quote:

This is about a new means of filtering (meaning : never applied before) and where I myself think it is the future of digital, it really is not if "you" think it is not.

so he does audible bit-perfect filtering(with different "jitter signatures") at the software level, damn he's good!

it takes brass balls to read more than 2 pages on this website

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif ah well, computeridiophile.com is beyond my capabilities...reading 700 messages from Peter is too painful to find that post where he clearly says that he does a lot of filtering. this one guy says he can hear difference between WAV and FLAC: EAC - Trojan | Computer Audiophile and here Peter says: XXHighEnd Application | Computer Audiophile so he does audible bit-perfect filtering(with different "jitter signatures") at the software level, damn he's good! it takes brass balls to read more than 2 pages on this website

It takes brass balls to post some of the stuff that shows up on CA (Peter is reality-based compared to some). It takes a strong stomach, or remarkable suspension of disbelief to read it.

P

 

[leeperry]

my favorite ever(from what I read so far) on computeridiophile.com was a guy who claimed that itunes was making better CD rips than EAC...because the EAC rips were full of jitter!

he even tried to prove that CRC/MD5 checks are meaningless, considering they only compare checksums...and that it doesn't mean that the files are 100% identical. he even claimed that CRC/MD5 cannot "see" jitter(considering it doesn't exist as such)

goooooooosh, such a breakthrough! eye opening to say the least

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif my favorite ever(from what I read so far) on computeridiophile.com was a guy who claimed that itunes was making better CD rips than EAC...because the EAC rips were full of jitter! he even tried to prove that CRC/MD5 checks are meaningless, considering they only compare checksums...and that it doesn't mean that the files are 100% identical. he even claimed that CRC/MD5 cannot "see" jitter(considering it doesn't exist as such) goooooooosh, such a breakthrough! eye opening to say the least

Interesting. Which was it? That EAC rips are full of jitter, or that jitter doesn't exist? And what was he selling?

For my part, I'm sure that jitter exists, relatively certain it is barely, if at all audible in most competent systems, and pretty sure that most audiophile systems have flaws that far outstrip, and probably mask, even audible jitter.

P