The default in Win 10 is FAT 32, which is how I format the SD cards - so far (knock wood) with no issues.
Really wish there was a topic just related to how Windom sounds vs Snowmass on different systems. I’m really interested in everyone’s experience. The troubleshooting and all the rest should be a separate topic. It’s getting tough sorting through the muck. How about starting a new topic - sound only. I hear someone tried that. Oh well…
3 Likes
Unfortunately, because of the shaky upgrade process, sound quality and upgrading issues blur together…
I don’t want the brightness I’m referring to to be interpreted as “harsh.” I don’t hear harshness, it’s just that Windom is showing me brightness on material I am playing more than Snowmass 3.06 has. Some material is wonderful sounding, but when not listening to the very best recordings (I’m a music lover, not a great sounding music lover) I am shown brightness a bit more clearly than Snowmass had. In no way is Windom “warm” in my system though. I don’t think I have a bad load, I’ve reloaded about six times in the last four days, gone back to Huron and up, rebooted without the card, etc. and the sound from Windom has been consistent throughout.
I have a very flexible system and today I’ve gone from just listening to the changed software to tweaking around it with riding the gain between components, P10 settings, speaker positioning, rolled a few tubes (and went back to what I had been using) etc. Sound is very good, and now less fatiguing. But in comparison to Snowmass there’s a bit more brightness revealed when on the recording.
2 Likes
That is very interesting as I would say that I do not get that in my system at all. In fact a recording that I always thought sounded to bright and thin now sound greatly improved. That recording being Donald Fagen’s Nightfly. Everything that I have been playing seems more natural and enjpyable.
3 Likes
I am with you. Cleaner upper frequency sounds don’t sound brighter to me either. Just cleaner and less harsh.
4 Likes
[DSJ, long time listener, first time caller]
I wonder if the difference is the system baseline? My amp is the S300 along with an assortment of somewhat expensive and supposedly lush sounding AQ interconnects, Colorado XLR’s. With my system, its always teetered on the edge of brightness, combined with my allergy to it. So for me, Windom’s clarity and detail also sounds too bright at times on familiar recordings that I never considered bright before like Natty Dread and Lyle Lovett’s Pontiac.
You have higher end tube amps, etc, which is a different baseline than my system. Thus the same Windom software could translate into a different, more pleasing result for you?
There’s much to like about Windom, and I will revisit it again. But for now, while I enjoy Windom’s detail and soundstage, but being sensitive to tone above all else, I prefer what ends up sounding more musical to me with Snowmass. With Snowmass, it has sounded just right for many months and I take comfort in that familiarity as it reduces my neurotic audiophile tendencies 
1 Like
I just put on nightfly on your suggestion. It does sound pretty marvelous. I thought it sounded kind of ‘hot’ before. I think windom brought it in alignment a bit.
2 Likes
I agree - Windom is fuller sounding than Snowmass but not warm. There is less sibilance in the highs but there are more highs that lends to brightness. The fuller sound ameliorates it slightly but as @lonson says it sounds great on good recordings and not so great on poorer ones - especially in the treble department. The mids are clear rather than warm but full sounding all the same.
My comments are based on Snowmass 3.00 vs Windom. I didn’t like Snowmass 3.05 for the additional highs.
The bass is where Windom beats Snowmass.
2 Likes
I think this is true.
When i upgraded to Snowmass-3.0.6 from Snowmass-3.0.4 there was more brightness, then i tried Snowmass-3.0.0 and that sounded much better than 3.0.6 and also better than 3.0.4. Now i think i had a bad load on the 3.0.6.
Going from Snowmass-3.0.0 to Windom everything changed for the better, in accordance to what speed-racer (and others) wrote before.
Then i tried going from Redcloud to Windom, that resulted in unpleasant brightness again.
With Windom I notice a better natural and even stress-reducing harmonic spectrum. Indian sitar music for instance sounded harsh and aggressive over decades with my PCM-DACs at those days. Well, it always had been better with DSD (Senior). But with Windom it is further improved. Voices even sound more natural, better separated, better placed on a very stable soundstage. Acoustic instruments sound more direct (e.g. Cello, Violin or Cembalo). Cembalo is even very solid reproduced; the wooden corpus is nearly touchable and the strings “got” refined harmonics. The offset in SQ between SACD and CD seems to be increased with Windom. Thank you very much indeed, Paul, Scott, Ted and PS Audio-Team! Great. Next step for me is trying a preamp between DSD and active speakers. I think I’ll give the Funk MTX Monitor a chance …
I really think you have a ‘less than perfect’ load.
Its my experience that with the real Windom every aspect of sound is better or at least as good as with Snowmass, on all recordings !
Hi badbeef, you say ‘I can’t load Anything that I make on my Macs’.
Could it be that you are unzipping the files that are already unzipped by the download process ?
I think of this because i remember someone stating that he is using Winzip7 on a Mac.
My Mac unzippes the files automatically immediately after download.
Hi badbeef, after i updated my Mac mini to ‘High Sierra’ the internal SD card reader did not work anymore.
So i bought a external usb hub with a SD slot in it.
For me it’s just the opposite.
Windom makes my poorer recordings sound much better than before, really !
Much less noise, much better coherence through the frequency range.
For the first time these older recordings sound just as i remember them from vinyl 40 years ago.
For instance Jimi Hendrix recordings, when i was young i enjoyed them on lp’s, later on cd much less.
Now with Windom the magic is back.
2 Likes
I find it frustrating that people are comparing Windom with different versions of Snowmass. My understanding is that 3.00/3.05/3.06 are variants of Bridge software (and they sound different from each other), so, for people like me who are using Coax there should be absolutely no difference.
I’ve made the point about going via the Bridge before. Via the Bridge we have three versions of Snowmass!.
Not one person has commented/agreed with Ted about naming the fpga version. Windom is 14507 (code version 145, compile version 7). Snowmass 3.00 is 13919 but there are different versions of the DSD (and I gather it’s those that sound different from each other). This all means that people are commenting on different versions of fpg 139 compile 19 if they go via the bridge.
Further, I’ve made the point about whether there’s a preamp after the dac.
My system is active and uses BHK250 channels for mid and treble. The mid or tweeter is connected directly to the output of the amp - no preamp is involved nor is there a crossover. I cannot believe that anyone considers Windom to have more air than Snowmass because in my system it’s the air that’s gone AWOL. With Snowmass I can listen to tracks from the likes of Eva Cassidy, Diana Krall, Grace Jones and be amazed at the sound I get - I cannot believe that the mastering engineer produced something that allows my system to sound so ‘in the room’ - Windom loses the life for me (even though it’s technically better than Snowmass). If one adds a preamp and crossover between the amp and driver one’s going through masses more circuitry that is affecting the sound.
I’m with Ted - refer to fpga/compile numbers and if you’re going via a Bridge add the dsd number. Also do you have a preamp and a crossover.
Complicated or what?!
D.
Isn’t it wonderful that we can even be having these discussions about a piece of stereo gear that the end user can reprogram at home?
1 Like
I’ve done all of the how to get a good load gymnastics. I even pause precisely 3 minutes between reboots - one minute each for the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit - just to cover all the bases 
. For me, Windom has less weight on the bottom, and more highs than I’m accustomed to compared to Snowmass. I initially preferred Windom, but the more I listened, the more I was drawn back to Snowmass.
1 Like
Hi, i am using the DSD (sr.) without a bridge with Coax, just like you. The DSD goes directly to the power amp. I agree that there should not have been a difference, but there was.
There definitely were differences between the Snowmass versions, and those differences were substantial. I also found that a little bit frustrating.
I bought the DSD new with Snomass-3.04 installed and it sounded very good.
Then i tried 3.06 just because it was the latest release and that sounded less good (to harsh / brittle).
Then i tried 3.00 because there were a lot of people who found 3.00 to be the best version.
For me 3.00 was definitely the best. It’s very good possible that the 3.06 load was not optimal.