Tír Na HiFi

LowOrbit wrote:Just moved to v18 PA and v20 Squeezelite. I'm liking this very much, really clean, balanced and musically involving.

This is on phones in the study, via mixing desk (really clean monitoring phoneamp) and Maudio audiophile 2496 pci card, running lowest wdm buffer (64 samples).

-a 5 -b 400:8000. Squeezelite consumes 0.1% of cpu on i7, W8, no optimisations applied. Interrupts are running well under 1%.

Will drop this into the music system at the weekend.

Having a go at this now. Assuming I did the right thing.Copied v18p and V20 into the bin folder and deleted the existing files and renamed the V18 and V20?? Soundstage and tone has taken a nice leap, Gordon described the previous version very accurately (flat sounding). This is really good. Subjectively I still think the MQn has the edge but this is really good. I think I could happily live with this but want to keep trying it and then go back to MQn.

a-2 b 260:8000 are my current settings.
Should I be trying some other settings?

tony wrote:

LowOrbit wrote:Just moved to v18 PA and v20 Squeezelite. I'm liking this very much, really clean, balanced and musically involving.

This is on phones in the study, via mixing desk (really clean monitoring phoneamp) and Maudio audiophile 2496 pci card, running lowest wdm buffer (64 samples).

-a 5 -b 400:8000. Squeezelite consumes 0.1% of cpu on i7, W8, no optimisations applied. Interrupts are running well under 1%.

Will drop this into the music system at the weekend.

Having a go at this now. Assuming I did the right thing.Copied v18p and V20 into the bin folder and deleted the existing files and renamed the V18 and V20?? Soundstage and tone has taken a nice leap, Gordon described the previous version very accurately (flat sounding). This is really good. Subjectively I still think the MQn has the edge but this is really good. I think I could happily live with this but want to keep trying it and then go back to MQn.

a-2 b 260:8000 are my current settings.
Should I be trying some other settings?

Tony be aware of the position of the dashes in the parameter string!!

Not much different preferences mentioned here:
I believe Nigel prefers -a 0 -b 300:4000
Gordon I believe likes -a 2 -b 400:8000

but that's about it.

Cheers

Aleg

wademcinnis wrote: 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.

After years of listening to CMP + cPlay on an optimised XP machine, when I got windows 8, even foobar on windows 8 was sounding better than my optimised XP machine.

Windows 8 is much better for audio than XP.

For those who have a true 4 core processor, try the following as a startup batch for Squeezelite-win.exe:
Tasker.exe is the program from taggart for setting affinity and priority, and I put that in C:\
Can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=51277#p51277

The start command will open a new command window for the Squeezelite-win.exe with no visual output, but it needs to be kept open!!!!

Change the "Speakers (Sonicweld Diverter HR2 Output) [Windows WDM-KS]" to your own output device and use your own prefered settings for -a and -b parameters.

What the 3 extra tasker.exe lines do is:
- set affinity for all programs except Squeezelite-win.exe and SqueezeSvr (the LMS server), to cores 0 and 2 and priority to normal.
- set affinity for the player Squeezelite-win.exe to core 1 and give it realtime priority.
- set affinity for SqueezeSvr to core 3 and also give it realtime priority.

So both the player Squeezelite-win and the LMS Server have their own core and run with realtime priority, while all others are on different cores and have lower priority.

Let me know what you think of it.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg

That's great - thank you.

I added a delayed start to your script and dropped it into the startup folder so it automatically runs after LMS has started.

Now I can boot without needing a screen or keyboard attached to the computer. Back to headless!

I run a four core i7, so splitting the load on the cores works fine. Not sure I hear much difference, but maybe a little cleaner, better separation.

Mark

You might want to try setting Squeezelite/LMS to 'High' Priority rather than 'Realtime'

I have found that to be preferable as have others. But YMMV of course, as JLP does seem much more system specific than MQn was.

jrling wrote:You might want to try setting Squeezelite/LMS to 'High' Priority rather than 'Realtime'

I have found that to be preferable as have others. But YMMV of course, as JLP does seem much more system specific than MQn was.

I just tried that one as well, but I found that I prefered the realtime.
I feel realtime has somewhat more 'immediacy' and a bit better definition. In the high setting it becomes a bit rounder along the edges.

I feel it may also be a matter of personal preference, besides system characteristics as I prefer the well defined sound over the warm, round analogue type of sound.

Cheers

Aleg

You have saved me lots of time.

Take care,

wademcinnis wrote:You have saved me lots of time.

Take care,

Audiophils optimizer for r2

Reduces footprint quite a bit

Are you going to give r2 a go

wademcinnis wrote:You have saved me lots of time.

Take care,

Wademcinnis

That almost sounds like a farewell ?;-)
Or did I just save you from delving into XP again?

You should know JLP and MQn give the most faithfull and revealing of musical reproductions I have ever heared. High Fidelity most true to the word. Very detailed and controled sound reproduction, deep and with great clarity.

The said warm, rounded analogue-type is IMHO a very limited way of music reproduction.

You should try the best setup for yourself, as is the current JLP, a core installation of Windows 2012R2, AudioPhil's optimiser, sync-ed timerresolution, clock rate and buffer size, and realtime priority settings and dedicated cores.

Cheers

Aleg