Who's used the Audiophile Optimizer for Windows 2012 Server or Windows 8?

[ALRAINBOW]

I Have two setups with hd plex and one with batteries. The hd plex is very good. I guess it's just how it sounds in your system. I do hear a difference from one chip to another but it's not major. It's more about the ambience if at all. I have from Xion 3.5 to I7 2.70 and N I5 as well. I do feel the DSD is better on an I7 chip though.

Lets see what Phil says. I do beleave you can go backwards though. Ask Phil. It's good to know for all of us. I did feel the new 1.30 was an improvement with mine but unlike the byte and not the smooth over sound.

Al

[Franatic]

I find the whole process of selecting sound signatures and filters a bit ethereal. It's not easy to categorize what each is doing, especially in my streaming set-up. I was mostly using 1B for my control pc and 4D for the Audio PC. The setting of the Audio PC definitely has the most effect for me. In 1.25 I found 4D had the most detailed and open presentation. (control pc-GUI / audio pc-coremode)

I agree with mourip that in 1.30 4D has changed. It is now a bit too open for my system, although it may work for others. I can see where it might become hollow on his system. Phil says these signatures are not so predictable and the effect may vary from system to system even though they are "bit perfect". I now like 3D on my Audio PC. I find it is fuller with deeper bass.

Overall, I find 1.30 a noticeable improvement in SQ.

[ALRAINBOW]

I do feel Phil is right as I have three stand alone setups and they do sound a bit difrent .

for me I like close and has byte so 1/a or 1b mostly. But i like it a bit hard not he soft tube sound for me.

It's like tube rolling really you pick what's best for you.

Al

[mourip]

I find the whole process of selecting sound signatures and filters a bit ethereal. It's not easy to categorize what each is doing, especially in my streaming set-up. I was mostly using 1B for my control pc and 4D for the Audio PC. The setting of the Audio PC definitely has the most effect for me. In 1.25 I found 4D had the most detailed and open presentation. (control pc-GUI / audio pc-coremode)

I agree with mourip that in 1.30 4D has changed. It is now a bit too open for my system, although it may work for others. I can see where it might become hollow on his system. Phil says these signatures are not so predictable and the effect may vary from system to system even though they are "bit perfect". I now like 3D on my Audio PC. I find it is fuller with deeper bass.

Overall, I find 1.30 a noticeable improvement in SQ.

 

Thanks. I did more listening tonight and I like your description of "open". 4D does seem more open and 1.30 seems to have a bit more detail however I miss the warmer presentation... on my system...even if it might be more technically accurate :-)

 

When I get more listening time I will try 3D.

 

BTW. Have you found the two PC setup to be a worthwhile improvement over one? Are you using JPlay?

[Franatic]

Actually, I had a 2 pc setup w/jplay first, then added AO. I found Jplay to be only a slight improvement w/jriver in a one pc setup. When I went to a streamer(with i7 processor) my SQ improved greatly w/jplay. Then I added AO and really fell in love with my setup.

From my experience I would say a streamer is worth the investment. However, I have not run a 1 pc setup with jplay and AO. It is not a given that 2 pcs is the best investment. Phil says one pc properly treated is better than 2 not so properly done.

However, with 2 pcs I like that I can keep my control pc in GUI and do email, surfing, etc, while my audio pc is in core mode playing killer tunes.

If I want to get more serious I put them both in core mode and the SQ++s. Many choices to make in computer audio. Good luck.

[AudioPhil]

Hi Folks

 

Today i got two mails from users which are not completely happy with AO 1.30. Well, this happens after every new release, and i'd like to tell you why that is. Early in the developing stage of AudiophileOptimizer (a point of time it was not available to buy anywhere or officially) i had to realize that there is just no "one-fits-all" solution in computer audio world. There are many things you can do with an OS which will be good in general and for "everybody". But some things just don't work like that way. There are countless variables in a computer audio setup which influence the final result. Many variables are even outside of the computer or the OS or the settings and tweaks i do with AO. Because i realized this early there where things invented like Sound Signatures and Digital-Filters. These two particular options have a very direct influence on the sound quality. It gave users the possibility to fine tune there systems to also cover the aspects which don't behave the same on every system.

 

So my job is to find a solution which will work very well for more than 99% of all setups. It's already very very hard to reach that level, but it's just not possible to get 100%.

 

So why isn't it possible to just "downgrade" the Optimizer back to the last version? Well i'll explain for you all. Let's assume you use AO 1.30 the first time, it offers a few new options, some old options work a slightly different way etc., lots of new things. If you then "downgrade" your installation to an older version, the old ServiceTool and AudiophileOptimizer cannot know about the changes or tweaks the newer version did. Everything would "look" great, but it would not end up whit one's expectations. It would be a mixture between 1.26 and 1.30, barely reproducible and for 100% not what you have in your memories with 1.26. it would be something completely different than what you expect. And that's the reason why there is a so called "downgrade protection" feature built into AO and Setup since a few versions. This will make it impossible to downgrade into an unsupported szenario with definitely not the outcome (sound wise) one expects.

 

So if one really want's to stick with an older version, only format and re installation of OS will bring that effect. I hope these explanations will help some to understand why certain things are how they are and why there are no downgrades "possible".

 

Best,

Phil

[mourip]

I agree with mourip that in 1.30 4D has changed. It is now a bit too open for my system, although it may work for others. I can see where it might become hollow on his system. Phil says these signatures are not so predictable and the effect may vary from system to system even though they are "bit perfect". I now like 3D on my Audio PC. I find it is fuller with deeper bass.

Overall, I find 1.30 a noticeable improvement in SQ.

 

I have been doing more listening and I find that I am just not as drawn into the music using any of the existing settings in 1.30 that I have tried. The sound is just a bit too clinical...in my system. It is sad because with 1.25 I was really, really happy. In my system 1.25 had a great balance of tonality and detail with a satisfying mid-range.

 

I guess that by now I should be used to temporarily losing ground in the endless cycle of attempts to find audio bliss. The good news is that I eventually move ahead. I guess that upgrades to highly resolving systems always carry risk and I do understand that. I do also understand that AO will not meet everyone's needs. I would still recommend it to anyone who wants to realize the real promise of digital playback.

 

I am now seriously considering reinstalling the OS and 1.25 to get back to the Happy Place.

[Mogos]

I am pleased with version 1.30 (I was not so with previous ones). Clinical hmm. In case of my audio setup it was improvement thoward the livie like sound.

[ALRAINBOW]

Running cord mode 1.30 and a MyTek. How can I run DSD 128. Do I need mini server

anyone trying this ?

[Franatic]

I have been doing more listening and I find that I am just not as drawn into the music using any of the existing settings in 1.30 that I have tried. The sound is just a bit too clinical...in my system. It is sad because with 1.25 I was really, really happy. In my system 1.25 had a great balance of tonality and detail with a satisfying mid-range.

 

I guess that by now I should be used to temporarily losing ground in the endless cycle of attempts to find audio bliss. The good news is that I eventually move ahead. I guess that upgrades to highly resolving systems always carry risk and I do understand that. I do also understand that AO will not meet everyone's needs. I would still recommend it to anyone who wants to realize the real promise of digital playback.

 

I am now seriously considering reinstalling the OS and 1.25 to get back to the Happy Place.

 

Sorry it's not working out for you, bummer. I see you have some serious equipment and you gave it an honest go.

I really like 1.30. For me it just seems more musical and its as if another veil was lifted between me and the real thing.

Do you have an audio usb card? I use one from Paul Pang Studio and it really improves the usb out.

[mourip]

Sorry it's not working out for you, bummer. I see you have some serious equipment and you gave it an honest go.

I really like 1.30. For me it just seems more musical and its as if another veil was lifted between me and the real thing.

Do you have an audio usb card? I use one from Paul Pang Studio and it really improves the usb out.

 

I also have a Paul Pang USB card. I like it a lot and feel it was a worthwhile upgrade to my server. I hope to add a shunt regulator to provide the dedicated 5v soon.

 

I am still doing listening with 1.30 and have not completely given up on it. It is certainly possible that I simply have a more neutral system now but that my preference is for more warmth. That would be a personal preference and not a shortcoming of AO.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[Audioclyde]

I like my system with a bit of warmth also, and have settled on 2D in AO 1.30...

[Franatic]

I also have a Paul Pang USB card. I like it a lot and feel it was a worthwhile upgrade to my server. I hope to add a shunt regulator to provide the dedicated 5v soon.

 

I am still doing listening with 1.30 and have not completely given up on it. It is certainly possible that I simply have a more neutral system now but that my preference is for more warmth. That would be a personal preference and not a shortcoming of AO.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I also am fond of a nice degree of warmth in my sound. I got it by adding a Woo WA2 tube amp. I use it as a combo preamp for my main system and headphone amp. My system is also neutral and this really adds warmth and fullness to the music. I can roll tubes to create almost any sound signature I want...and it's fun.

[TJHUB]

I too am struggling with AO 1.30. The sound is now too thin, and lacks bass. I liked JPLAY's extreme engine and AO in 4D. This is now unacceptable for me. I'm working my way through other settings, but it has thus far been frustrating with poor results. Im not sure what to do.

[aljordan]

Hi,

 

I thought I would chime in with my results regarding the stuff in this thread. I am lucky to have a MSDN subscription through my job, so I downloaded 2012 R2 standard and installed it on an extra SSD to see if I could get my audio system working in core mode.

 

For comparison, on another drive on the same computer, I have a somewhat tweaked version of Windows 7. Up to this point, the best sound I have been able to get from a computer transport is with a headless Fit-PC Slim with linear power supply running a highly optimized version of Linux / MPD / Brutefir, but it is USB only. I don't use JPlay because I always run room correction filters no matter which DAC. I have two DACs which I tested with: a Prism Sound Orpheus and an Audio-GD Reference 7 fed by a Berkeley Alpha USB convertor. With the Orpheus I am running multichannel outputs for use with Acourate digital crossovers and room correction filters. With the 2 channel Audio-GD, I run room correction but use the speaker's crossovers. JRiver 19 is the player.

 

My first results with 2012 in core mode were good when compared against Windows 7 with the USB output, but challenging in comparison to Windows 7 with the firewire DAC. With the firewire DAC in core mode, there was more detail coming through and I was digging the spatial aspects of the sound, but there was also a degree of edginess and a comparatively unnatural hifi quality to the sound. I futzed with things a bit but still the additional detail was too much on certain types of recordings.

 

I decided to buy the Optimizer, mainly becauseI guess I am not as immune to hype as I should be. I had to think about it for a while because, even though I had written software to make early versions CPlay and JPlay a bit easier to use, I always found these paired down players a pain in the butt to use compared to JRiver or MPD with a remote control. But because JRiver was pretty much fully functional with the ASIO drivers in core mode, I decided to give the Optimizer a try. Given all the hype in this thread, and how a few loud-mouths on the Internet can convince a lot of people to spend money that they would be better off keeping, I was pretty much convinced it would be a waste of money. I was planning on buying the 14 day trial, but then realized I would have to reload a trial version of 2012 and thought that was more trouble than throwing away 130 bucks.

 

So I ran the optimizer in ultimate mode but kept networking so I could control my headless box. That was a few days ago, and I've put about 24 hours of listening in since then. Here is what I like about the sound with the Optimizer: With the Firewire DAC, core mode alone brought extra detail but too much "edge" with it. Core mode with the Optimizer keeps the detail and gets rid of the edge. Compared to Windows 7 with the USB setup, core mode plus Optimizer makes Windows 7 sound like I am listening to a radio station with the dial slightly off the proper tuning frequency. Optimizer gives for a cleaner, richer sound yet with more body and solidity. In the past I've been able to glean a little improvement out of tweaking windows and using Cplay / JPlay, but it was nothing in comparison to the gains of well implemented room correction in my already good room. I have to say, room correction along with 2012 / Optimizer has resulted in really, really, really good sound. Even after getting used to the sound for a few days, I am still periodically overcome by how good the sound is.

 

All things stereo are perceptible only by contrast. The Optimizer does this trick of body and life that I was never really able to get out of my sigma delta DAC compared to my current and former R2R DACs. I've always liked the Orpheus for its smoothness and performance at both ends of the frequency spectrum, and its ability to not sound like mush when music gets big and complex. However, for life and body, the resistor ladder DACs would always get the nod. The Orpheus now has more body than I was getting out of the R2R DAC in Windows 7. The system is now like a chameleon: quiet and delicate when called for, dynamic when called for, 3D yet with very solid and palpable images when called for, and very big when called for. My system had previously excelled in spatial aspects compared to others I've heard (or maybe it's just my room), but now system makes the previous sound a bit flat in comparison. It is really very striking.

 

I don't want to say that Windows 2012 / Optimizer has been the only cause of these great results, but the combination of a good room, well matched equipment, proper equalization through room correction, time aligned digital crossovers, blah blah blah blah blah AND the Optimizer has led me to be blessed by music even more so than I was before.

 

However…

 

For some reason, at least with the Firewire DAC (I haven't tested via USB yet) these misnamed "digital filter" settings in the Optimizer make absolutely no difference. Over the years, I have developed sensitivity for deciphering the results of very small broadband changes in the target curve of my room correction filters. I read about others results with varying 1 through 4 and A through D filter settings on the Optimizer, but there are no tonal differences going through my firewire DAC. Maybe it's that I am running convolution. Maybe it is because I am not using USB. Maybe it's that these filter settings don't make as much of a difference on the latest version of Optimizer (1.3, I never tried an earlier version). Maybe it is that I am using a rather powerful quad core build instead of a low power PC. In any event, I even went so far as switching settings while playing pink noise so I could be attuned to changes, but still not a hint of tonal difference.

 

Still, I am very, very happy with the overall results of Optimizer in core mode, and I am happy to say that it turned out to be a cost effective improvement to my system.

[k6davis]

I am one of the AO users who previously contacted Phil privately about not liking the sound of version 1.30. After trying out many combinations of settings in AO & JPlay, I still haven't been able to arrive at a satisfactory result.

 

I too find 1.30 to sound thin and lacking in bass, warmth and most of all, ease. I use Clonezilla to back up my OS drives, so I'm able to switch back and forth pretty easily. All of the magic is restored in my system with version 1.27. To my ears, and in my system, the difference between the two is not a matter of 1.30 being brighter than older versions. 1.27 has all of the high frequency extension I could want. The character of the sound between the two versions is different.

 

It's fascinating that the reactions differ to this degree - from "it is a leap" to "poor results" - and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I don't know if there's anything technical to be gleaned from that, but 1.27 makes my system sound amazing, so I'm happy staying there - for now.

[mourip]

Clonezilla...

 

I have 20/20 hindsight.

 

I should have used Clonezilla :-)

[mourip]

I like my system with a bit of warmth also, and have settled on 2D in AO 1.30...

 

Thanks for the input. Glad I am not alone...

 

So I tried 2D yesterday and although I found it better than 4D (with 1.30) I still found myself restless and switching tracks hoping to get the magic back of 4D with 1.25.

 

Phil said "There are countless variables in a computer audio setup which influence the final result. Many variables are even outside of the computer or the OS or the settings and tweaks i do with AO."

 

Possibly true however the curious thing is that I do not believe that anything changed except upgrading from 1.26 to 1.30. It would be ideal if there was consistency for the various sound signatures as versions changed/"improved", otherwise one is left with concern that any given update might take away the magic that for some of us has been hard won.

 

Phil also said "So my job is to find a solution which will work very well for more than 99% of all setups. It's already very very hard to reach that level, but it's just not possible to get 100%."

 

I can understand this as I believe that with AO we are pressing up against the edge of what is possible for wringing the most benefit out of existing recording technology. I just hope that we have not reached the flat point of the curve with results becoming unpredictable in a given system.

 

Worst case I go back to 1.25 and do experience a great deal of happiness. Still the best playback I have experienced thanks to Phil.

 

I would be interested in hear more feedback from others who have upgraded to 1.30...

[dennis97]

Thanks for the input. Glad I am not alone...

 

So I tried 2D yesterday and although I found it better than 4D (with 1.30) I still found myself restless and switching tracks hoping to get the magic back of 4D with 1.25.

 

Phil said "There are countless variables in a computer audio setup which influence the final result. Many variables are even outside of the computer or the OS or the settings and tweaks i do with AO."

 

Possibly true however the curious thing is that I do not believe that anything changed except upgrading from 1.26 to 1.30. It would be ideal if there was consistency for the various sound signatures as versions changed/"improved", otherwise one is left with concern that any given update might take away the magic that for some of us has been hard won.

 

Phil also said "So my job is to find a solution which will work very well for more than 99% of all setups. It's already very very hard to reach that level, but it's just not possible to get 100%."

 

I can understand this as I believe that with AO we are pressing up against the edge of what is possible for wringing the most benefit out of existing recording technology. I just hope that we have not reached the flat point of the curve with results becoming unpredictable in a given system.

 

Worst case I go back to 1.25 and do experience a great deal of happiness. Still the best playback I have experienced thanks to Phil.

 

I would be interested in hear more feedback from others who have upgraded to 1.30...

 

 

I also upgraded to 1.30 but finally reinstalled Windows 2012 and AO 1.25, much better sound in my setup

 

Dennis

[dtb300]

I am running 1.30 but I do not use any of the sound filters - run with "X" - "X". And had same settings with 1.26. I enjoyed the upgrade to 1.30 with my setup.

[TJHUB]

I run a single PC, WS2012R2, core mode, JRMC 19, and JPLAY 5.2.1. Since upgrading to AO 1.30, I don't like my old settings of Xtreme, and 4D. The sound is thin and lacks bass heft as I stated above. In desperation to find settings I like, I tried JPLAY's River engine with 4D. This gets me back to a more familiar sound before upgrading to AO 1.30.

 

Can anyone else test this?

[AudioPhil]

I am one of the AO users who previously contacted Phil privately about not liking the sound of version 1.30. After trying out many combinations of settings in AO & JPlay, I still haven't been able to arrive at a satisfactory result.

 

I too find 1.30 to sound thin and lacking in bass, warmth and most of all, ease. I use Clonezilla to back up my OS drives, so I'm able to switch back and forth pretty easily. All of the magic is restored in my system with version 1.27. To my ears, and in my system, the difference between the two is not a matter of 1.30 being brighter than older versions. 1.27 has all of the high frequency extension I could want. The character of the sound between the two versions is different.

 

It's fascinating that the reactions differ to this degree - from "it is a leap" to "poor results" - and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I don't know if there's anything technical to be gleaned from that, but 1.27 makes my system sound amazing, so I'm happy staying there - for now.

 

There is no AO 1.27 existing?

 

Instead of using an older version of AO one could just skip the new features like SCSI-MiniPort Drivers, SEHOP, SPPSVC, etc.

 

This would end up with something very very similar to 1.26 (this is what you probably mean with 1.27?) and has the advantage of still being supported by us etc.

[k6davis]

I run a single PC, WS2012R2, core mode, JRMC 19, and JPLAY 5.2.1. Since upgrading to AO 1.30, I don't like my old settings of Xtreme, and 4D. The sound is thin and lacks bass heft as I stated above. In desperation to find settings I like, I tried JPLAY's River engine with 4D. This gets me back to a more familiar sound before upgrading to AO 1.30.

 

Can anyone else test this?

 

I tried out different versions of JPlay's engines back before the release of AO 1.30 and found that I preferred "River" to the newer "Xtream" and "Ultrastream" engines. The sound was more natural and open and the decay of notes was much more realistic.

 

This is just my opinion/experience, but benefits of "River" are independent from AO. Although River improved the sound with AO 1.30, it didn't remove the qualities of AO 1.30 that I didn't like. The upside is that you can have the benefits of AO 1.27 (which you and I prefer.. so far) and "River". If you haven't heard that combination, you're in for a real treat.

 

There is no AO 1.27 existing?

 

Instead of using an older version of AO one could just skip the new features like SCSI-MiniPort Drivers, SEHOP, SPPSVC, etc.

 

This would end up with something very very similar to 1.26 (this is what you probably mean with 1.27?) and has the advantage of still being supported by us etc.

 

Ooopss. I have version 1.26b.

 

Since I have the ability to switch back and forth between versions, I'll give that a try. What you're saying makes sense to me Phil, but I seem to recall trying that before and still not liking it. I'll report my findings.

[TJHUB]

There is no AO 1.27 existing?

 

Instead of using an older version of AO one could just skip the new features like SCSI-MiniPort Drivers, SEHOP, SPPSVC, etc.

 

This would end up with something very very similar to 1.26 (this is what you probably mean with 1.27?) and has the advantage of still being supported by us etc.

 

The only setting I changed in AO is enabling SEHOP, and I'm back to the Extreme engine and 4D. Apparently disabling the SEHOP was my main problem. I'm working on the house today, so I have no real listening time to get into real detail.

 

What is the setting question for SCSI-MiniPort Drivers and SPPSVC? I didn't see them 2 times through in Ultimate mode?

[Audioclyde]

TJHUB, I think you are on to something; I went in this afternoon and enabled SEHOP. I'm still running River (in JPlay settings) and on my usual favorite 2D settings in AO (Ultimate) and I'm liking the sound a lot.

 

Question: I'm in core mode; is there a command prompt command to pull up the JPlay Settings (to easier more easily try other options without going back to GUI)?

 

Thanks,

 

Randy