DS and NPC Latest Firmware


#1

Hi

I’m back.

What is the latest best DS Firmware version?

… and which Firmware should I be using for my NPC or does that not really matter?

Thanks all,


#2

I’m going to use 1.1.9 as that seems to be the latest (and the greatest?)

I’d appreciate some confirmation, thanks,


#3

1.1.9 is the latest. I think the consensus is that 1.1.9 sounds pretty darn good.

Although I wonder if Ted has anything in the fire that we might be able to get before RMAF???


#4

Tony,

I am demoing the Directstream (still own PWD II) and it has 1.1.7 on it. Systems differences notwithstanding, what might I expect with 1.1.9??

Thanks in advance, John in Texas


#5

I’m still using 6115. Any thoughts on how that FW compares to 1.1.9 ?


#6

I’ll ask Ted to jump in with the particulars, but IIRC the differences in 1.1.7 and 1.1.9 from 1.1.5 are all in the PIC and/or display code. I personally did not hear any significant (read: none that I could detect) difference between 1.1.5 and either of these versions.


#7

Yep, the same FPGA 6115 code is in all of the newer sets of releases. (Shows as FPGA 0.61 in your versions screen.)


#8

Okay, thanks Tony and Ted. It’s good to know I’m still current, well the FW anyway. Maybe I’ll toss the rhinestone bellbottoms.


#9

But still, they are different compilations (that have been voiced) - so simulated annealing artifacts could in theory have surfaced…(or?)


#10

Nope, same exact bits. In 6115 the 61 is the FPGA source version number and the 15 is the seed for that compile.


#11
Ted Smith said Nope, same exact bits. In 6115 the 61 is the FPGA source version number and the 15 is the seed for that compile.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that a pic code recompile does not jeopardize any SQ and that only recompile of the FPGA code wil make any potential impact.

What is more of a puzzle (it is actually quite worrying, IMO) are all the rave comments from many reviewers how much better the 1.1.9 sounds compared with the 1.1.5 (having identical FPGA versions).

To me this questions the whole review process and is quite irrational and confusing.

There has to be some kind of a psycological effect in play here.


#12

1.1.5 has FPGA 5407.

1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 have FPGA 6115

1.1.5 was the initial release for first shipments and early reviewers - we went to 1.1.6 a little later.


#13

Ok, but in this case I wonder what happened because I have 1.1.5 and 0.61. I guess this was due to betatesting, where things were mixed a little.


#14

when is the next firmware release due?


#15
Frode said

What is more of a puzzle (it is actually quite worrying, IMO) are all the rave comments from many reviewers how much better the 1.1.9 sounds compared with the 1.1.5 (having identical FPGA versions).

To me this questions the whole review process and is quite irrational and confusing.

There has to be some kind of a psycological effect in play here.


No question. Reviewing is extremely subjective and contains all the foibles of humans expressing opinions. Placebo effects, expectation bias, etc. all come to the fore.

#16
Frode said

What is more of a puzzle (it is actually quite worrying, IMO) are all the rave comments from many reviewers how much better the 1.1.9 sounds compared with the 1.1.5 (having identical FPGA versions).


Did I miss something? When did that happen? I have an easier time picking out the sonic difference between MinimServer and eMM (which is almost no difference) than between 1.1.5 and 1.1.9. I find no discernible difference between the two FW versions, and you all know how picky I can be!wink

#17

Beta testers had options that the rest of the world didn’t: They were given 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 installers that only affected the PIC and not the FPGA. They were also given separate FPGA 5407 and FPGA 6115 installers that only affected the FPGA code and not the PIC. This is good for changing as few variables at a time as possible for A/B’ing but also can lead to software combinations that never make it into the world. (Which beta testers should expect anyway.) In general we should remind beta testers to install the official releases when they are done beta testing. This might have helped keep the confusion down.

The installers available from the download area update all of the software at once and if you use them you will get the specific version combinations that are released to the world.


#18

Hmm, well now you remind me of something at the time, Ted. When we had the beta versions of 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 I recall I didn’t care for the sound of 1.1.6 as much as I did 1.1.5. Only PIC differences between those two?confused-28_gif


#19
tony22 said Hmm, well now you remind me of something at the time, Ted. When we had the beta versions of 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 I recall I didn't care for the sound of 1.1.6 as much as I did 1.1.5. Only PIC differences between those two?confused-28_gif
1.1.5 and 1.1.6 refer to the PIC numbers and depending on the installer you used it might have only changed the PIC code. But also at the time we didn't realize how significantly waiting a few minutes after an install could affect the sound quality. I sure had some changes that sounded bad just after an install and sounded much better after, say, 5 or 10 minutes. Till we realized that it takes a little while to settle, things were sometimes quite confusing. I think this is the biggest reason we had reports that installing something twice could sound different than installing it once... There also were some bugs fixed in 1.1.6 that in 1.1.5 affected the volume if you had the phase inverted: people were, at times, comparing two different volume levels when going back and forth which also lead to some confusion.

#20

Hmm.