Tír Na HiFi

2 CPU PC could be fun. i looked into that. a lot of registry tweaks can be applied. think you can choose to route data from CPU to nearest RAM to nearest DAC. you can put everything on 1 CPU, officially supported by Microsoft. the other CPU can be of your service entirely.

jesuscheung wrote:2 CPU PC could be fun. i looked into that. a lot of registry tweaks can be applied. think you can choose to route data from CPU to nearest RAM to nearest DAC. you can put everything on 1 CPU, officially supported by Microsoft. the other CPU can be of your service entirely.

why aren't multicore cpu's any good for you, the L1,L2 and L3 cache are separate ? I thought you mentioned MS affinity tool a while back that can assign IRQ's etc to the required cores. I used it once and it made a small difference.

nige2000 wrote:havnt tried ferrite cores yet but
all these things seem to matter quite a bit
spinning hard drives are a disaster especially if not externally powered
there are issues that cant be addressed within the software,
analogue engineering?

first time I'd tried it on the usb cable from drive to pc as thought it would be immune ,the drive had a linear supply and ferrite on the dc cable already. Just made a loop and clamped one of the maplin ferrites where the 2 cables of the loop joined and also had a ring ferrite which I just placed on top of the usb connector as it goes into the pc.

until I can afford a 2tb ssd I'll just have to make do with spinning disks.

sbgk wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:2 CPU PC could be fun. i looked into that. a lot of registry tweaks can be applied. think you can choose to route data from CPU to nearest RAM to nearest DAC. you can put everything on 1 CPU, officially supported by Microsoft. the other CPU can be of your service entirely.

why aren't multicore cpu's any good for you, the L1,L2 and L3 cache are separate ? I thought you mentioned MS affinity tool a while back that can assign IRQ's etc to the required cores. I used it once and it made a small difference.

i tried affinity tool too. makes SQ worse. coz it is intended for multi-processors. not multi-core.

windows routes IRQ signal by shortest "physical distance".
if somehow you choose a board where DAC+hdd+RAM is near CPU1.
everything else(NIC, GPU) is near CPU2, you have a perfect setup, in theory.

with one CPU setup, when IRQ comes, it enters the CPU, that decreases SQ regardless whether you select a core or not by affinity tool. all cores are inside the same CPU anyway. that how i feel about it. maybe i am not making any sense haha

(the idea is making sure IRQ never enters that CPU responsible for audio streaming)

jesuscheung wrote:

sbgk wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:2 CPU PC could be fun. i looked into that. a lot of registry tweaks can be applied. think you can choose to route data from CPU to nearest RAM to nearest DAC. you can put everything on 1 CPU, officially supported by Microsoft. the other CPU can be of your service entirely.

why aren't multicore cpu's any good for you, the L1,L2 and L3 cache are separate ? I thought you mentioned MS affinity tool a while back that can assign IRQ's etc to the required cores. I used it once and it made a small difference.

i tried affinity tool too. makes SQ worse. coz it is intended for multi-processors. not multi-core.

windows routes IRQ signal by shortest "physical distance".
if somehow you choose a board where DAC+hdd+RAM is near CPU1.
everything else(NIC, GPU) is near CPU2, you have a perfect setup, in theory.

with one CPU setup, when IRQ comes, it enters the CPU, that decreases SQ regardless whether you select a core or not by affinity tool. all cores are inside the same CPU anyway. that how i feel about it. maybe i am not making any sense haha

(the idea is making sure IRQ never enters that CPU responsible for audio streaming)

I tried it and it works with a small gain in SQ, if you look at resource monitor it calls cores CPUs so think there is confusion between
naming conventions, but in resource monitor you can see which core/cpu the interrupt is working on. Also in the intflltr instructions it mentions hyperthreading so again confusion between cores/cpus and processors.

anybody tried fidelizer 4 with mqn ?

sbgk wrote:anybody tried fidelizer 4 with mqn ?

trying it (audiophile level) right now. reduced texture. blurry mellow sound. reduced vibration. stage size -1%. reduced weight. reduced sharpness.

everything is normalized... wtf

stage height contracted by 1% i think.

less air. enhanced digital richness.

reduced 3D into 2D. very tidy 2D positioning.

(15 minutes later)
time to restore my PC.

sbgk wrote:anybody tried 4 with mqn ?

ok hadnt tried it in a long while

did a fresh r2 and installed fidelizer on extremist mode
sounded restricted by comparision

new player in town, very reasonably priced too.

http://www.danielhertz.com/index.php/master-class

sbgk wrote:new player in town, very reasonably priced too.

http://www.danielhertz.com/index.php/master-class

Yes, very funny that one.
Are there people out there that would fall for this?

Cheers

Aleg