Page 19 of 43
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:44 pm
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:sbgk wrote:using -a 1 b: 1000:200000 -q with default amanero driver settings getting 0.6 % cpu system interrupts.
Still like the large decode buffer.
can you go under 1000 streaming seems to help as much as the low latency
can get it to 300, that sounds better, thanks. thought 1000 was the min I could get when I tried before.
300 is a bit wearing, 400 sounds better for me
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:54 pm
by nige2000
sbgk wrote:nige2000 wrote:sbgk wrote:using -a 1 b: 1000:200000 -q with default amanero driver settings getting 0.6 % cpu system interrupts.
Still like the large decode buffer.
can you go under 1000 streaming seems to help as much as the low latency
can get it to 300, that sounds better, thanks. thought 1000 was the min I could get when I tried before.
wasn't that excited about big decode buffer maybe 4000- 20000
might be no harm to recheck with the new streaming buffer
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:04 am
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:
wasn't that excited about big decode buffer maybe 4000- 20000
might be no harm to recheck with the new streaming buffer
8000 sounds better, tuneable sound - MQn didn't have that
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:13 am
by nige2000
sbgk wrote:nige2000 wrote:
wasn't that excited about big decode buffer maybe 4000- 20000
might be no harm to recheck with the new streaming buffer
8000 sounds better, tuneable sound - MQn didn't have that
Aleg's 8000 decode buffer
yea its good, i was liking 4000 with the last version
anyway these settings seem important
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:20 am
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:sbgk wrote:nige2000 wrote:
wasn't that excited about big decode buffer maybe 4000- 20000
might be no harm to recheck with the new streaming buffer
8000 sounds better, tuneable sound - MQn didn't have that
Aleg's 8000 decode buffer
yea its good, i was liking 4000 with the last version
anyway these settings seem important
smaller values, higher frequency of buffer filling etc, smaller amount of noise at constant period, too small = digital
larger size = loss of detail, less digital sounding, less uniform period, larger lumps of electrical noise, this was all explained by cics/cplay project. Choose your poison.
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:30 am
by nige2000
bit like a mixer valve for a tap
not too hot not too cold
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:42 am
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:bit like a mixer valve for a tap
not too hot not too cold
nah, we bypass the mixer
difference between a centrifugal pump and a reciprocating pump perhaps.
anyway, the new version sounds better with the 400:8000 for me and happy that it's improved on previous version.
Sounds musical to me, what do the critical listeners think ?
If I can get a similar lift with pa pgo then I can stop here and get the missing functionality back.
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:16 am
by jrling
sbgk wrote:using -a 1 b: 1000:200000 -q with default amanero driver settings getting 0.6 % cpu system interrupts.
Anyone else getting high % Windows System Interrupts? We are running WS2012 R2.
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:03 pm
by sima66
I'm trying to keep up with you guys here and try to understand if the "Squeezelite Affinityset 4core.exe" should be placed in the same bin like the other excels? Should both be in the bin, in the same time?
Re: JLP wdm-ks player
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:08 pm
by nige2000
sima66 wrote:I'm trying to keep up with you guys here and try to understand if the "Squeezelite Affinityset 4core.exe" should be placed in the same bin like the other excels? Should both be in the bin, in the same time?
yes in the bin file along with everything else