Tír Na HiFi

Thanks as always, Nige.

taggart and I have found that the Thesycon driver set at Minimum (1ms) does cause strained sound on our different platforms. The second lowest setting ('Low - 2ms) was optimal.

Horses for courses, or trade off between convenience and 'hair-shirt' approach on hardware. I did have a FIT PC2 which is tiny and well constructed, but in the end a single core Atom just did not hack it.

Jonathan

im starting to think that the lower latency buffer and clock rate settings seem optimal but they seem to be related to one another
in that specific values seem better
JC might have some insight

no idea what's going on anymore.
now your have NIC buffer, DAC buffer, JLP buffer. may or may not need clockrate (depends on sbgk disables or not the MMCSS)
too many variables... (is KS using hardware buffer or normal buffer? that makes a difference too)

before with MQn, i just need to buy more expensive RAM, SQ automatically improves. (because between CPU cache and RAM, RAM is much slower is clearly the bottleneck)
now with this new model, NIC memory is replacing RAM? do i need to buy better NIC to improve SQ?

waiting for JLP to stabilize.

jesuscheung wrote:
waiting for JLP to stabilize.

New version is quite stable and sounds outstanding.

depends if JLP still uses RAM. not sure if RAM is as influential as it did with MQn.

anyway, i used to think overclocking ram is bad for SQ. not anymore. what i did i only increase RAM voltage to stabilize overclocking. i forgot to increase the RAM controller voltage as well. that's why i hear increase in resolution but also heavy earaches. next time you buy a mobo for hifi, make sure it has VCCIO and VCCSA in the bios. or you will regret like me

lol i am going off topic as usual.

Really low clock rates don't suit
but 23220 and 448 sound good
is there a common denominator ?
I'm only starting to play but think there's a pattern in there

think jlp and mqn are comparable now
although not just quite there yet
settings are essential for preformance

Readily admit I have no idea how to work with this but if it is 32 bit seems like XP Pro could be worth a try.

I have installed LMS on my office computer just to see what is there - it does install differently on XP than on SERVER. There is no folder named PROGRAM DATA in XP and nor is a CACHE folder created and no INSTALLED PLUGINS - only PLUGINS.

Just looking for an informed opinion as to whether this is worth pursuing with XP or not?

Even a good intentioned hunch would be better than nothing.

wademcinnis wrote:Readily admit I have no idea how to work with this but if it is 32 bit seems like XP Pro could be worth a try.

I have installed LMS on my office computer just to see what is there - it does install differently on XP than on SERVER. There is no folder named PROGRAM DATA in XP and nor is a CACHE folder created and no INSTALLED PLUGINS - only PLUGINS.

Just looking for an informed opinion as to whether this is worth pursuing with XP or not?

Even a good intentioned hunch would be better than nothing.

I am not sure about XP, but I noticed that Win8 hides Program Data. Make sure that you're setup isn't such to hide that particular folder.
This is in Windows Explorer.

wademcinnis wrote:Readily admit I have no idea how to work with this but if it is 32 bit seems like XP Pro could be worth a try.

I have installed LMS on my office computer just to see what is there - it does install differently on XP than on SERVER. There is no folder named PROGRAM DATA in XP and nor is a CACHE folder created and no INSTALLED PLUGINS - only PLUGINS.

Just looking for an informed opinion as to whether this is worth pursuing with XP or not?

Even a good intentioned hunch would be better than nothing.

Create that path by yourself.

squeezelite and portaudio is 64bit

64bit is better

edit
tried to do a xp 64 install
was getting into the nostalgia when BSOD
im not curious enough to go further