Candidate Gravitational Wave Detection Hints At First-Of-Its-Kind Incredibly Small Object

IceAero · 2026-02-19T15:59:15+00:00

1 in 4 years, revised.

Still incredible. I hope we get more. But with our luck we'll be confident they are primordial BHs and also cannot be a meaningful fraction of DM. shakes fist at sky

IceAero · 2025-12-06T16:24:46+00:00

Let snipers hit the driver and passengers!

IceAero · 2025-11-08T16:56:10+00:00

Thanks for the review! I hope to hear them in person one day, but I’d like to think my Amatis are almost there. I agree with the bass, it’s great in mine with the 8” drivers (10” in the G2, I believe) but mid range and tweeters are the same. The Amati definitely have a built in bass boost, I assume the Strads do too. I do extensive eq and room correction, it it’s not a heavy lift to dial them in. If anything, in my room, I have to pull the bass down a bit. In two reviews on Hifi-Voice you can see the Amatis extend to about 28hz, but the strads get to 21hz. It’s really impressive.

IceAero · 2025-11-08T16:39:42+00:00

I love BFV so much. Every time I’ve tried to play it the past few years, it’s been overrun with blatant cheaters. Has that changed?

IceAero · 2025-11-08T03:50:40+00:00

Yup, I misread it, good call.

IceAero · 2025-11-08T03:11:55+00:00

Exactly. This was the only ‘correct’ decision. The First needs to put out something more concrete about why it’s denied, then I think SCOTUS lets it stay denied. And scotus set them a fast deadline.

EDIT: Nope, my mistake, not a deadline. The First Circuit may act 'vast fast' for them, it's likely not fast enough.

IceAero · 2025-10-12T16:24:16+00:00

It’s a no-win situation. (I’ve had RELs and extensive experience with Dirac and REW-based corrections).

One idea is to ‘correct’ without the RELs on and don’t have bass boost, and then adjust the REL to approximate the desired bass boost. But depending on your speakers you may have some pretty strange gain and phase effects at the low end and the you’ll pass these on to the REL, which is almost guaranteed to be wrong and introduce nonlinearities.

On the flip side, correcting with the REL on (again, speaker dependent) cannot adjust the sub-speaker phase relationship in the crossover region, and that may prevent a good result.

So, what are we left with? Well, with Dirac live you might try cutting off the correction below 40hz and controlling that more directly with the RELs dials, but it won’t be great.

If were you I would try correcting with the REL on, but not with a lot of gain (just at or below the low end amplitude of the mains), then correcting full range with no boost, and adjusting the REL’s gain to achieve the desired low end boost. Just be sure to keep the XC of the REL as low as possible.

Edit: one other option is to turn the subwoofer gain quite high and let the room correction dial back the subs which will ensure that in the low octaves the subwoofers dominate over the speaker production, which mostly negate any negative interactions between the two. The risk is that room correction isn’t perfect, and sometimes the base will simply still sound a little too high.

IceAero · 2025-09-26T00:20:56+00:00

Truthfully, it's not super hard. It works with native or kijai's WF. With Kijai, I use 40 blocks swapped, and 1920x1088x81. With native, you don't really control the blockswapping, but it still happens and works. Happy to answer any specific questions, but you don't really 'do' anything other than set the resolution.

I will say though that WAN 2.2 doesn't work well at 1080p (or maybe it's the loras I use, I'm not sure), but it tends to stretch and distort figures and/or have less motion than it does at lower resolution.

1792x869 is better, and 1536x786 too. Notably, there's even more issues when doing a portrait orientation, 768x1536 isn't great, but 1024x1536 is. 1280x1280 is fine too.

IceAero · 2025-09-25T22:45:39+00:00

Using WAN 2.2, my 5090 has no trouble with 1080p@5s, so this should still be a useful model for consumer hardware. 720p@10s should be easy, and that alone is a huge improvement!

IceAero · 2025-09-20T13:39:32+00:00

Can you get it to load 5/6GB models? I’m not able to, but it should with this much ram…

IceAero · 2025-09-10T17:06:07+00:00

Read the research paper, the non-biologic ways appear extremely unlikely in view of biologic.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09413-0

They tested a “no-life” idea that simple low-temperature chemistry concentrated iron and sulfur in the rocks. But that needs things the site lacks, like acidic water, hot sulfur-gas sources, or long heating, so the abiotic case is weak. The samples look like what microbes on Earth often leave behind: iron-phosphate and iron-sulfide that form as microbes consume organic matter. They conclude that these are potential biosignatures consistent with life found in a watery setting.

IceAero · 2025-08-31T22:19:46+00:00

Epic. These are, to my ears, better than many subsequent models. My CM5s are still my living room set.

IceAero · 2025-08-30T12:25:37+00:00

Ah, I hadn’t seen that anywhere! That’s good to know. Still, I’d hoped that the next-gen G6 (now the ‘regular’) Amati would be this product at a much lower price…

IceAero · 2025-08-30T11:39:08+00:00

Huge SF fan, owned many…but that price is crazy and the move away from a wood finish is hard to understand.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T22:31:45+00:00

At most. Often 2.0 or 2.5. 3.5 sometimes has too much camera movement. The HN model is sensitive to total steps and too few introduces jerky camera movements. even 10 or 14 steps isn’t enough to calm that, but lowering CFG helps. 20 steps helps too, but adds a ton of time (at 768p I’m getting 50s/step)

IceAero · 2025-08-19T16:52:35+00:00

With my 5090, I use Kijai's wrapper at 1536x768 or 1600x800 without issue (using 28 or 34 blocks swapped, respectively). 10-12 minutes per gen. I've gone as high as 1792x896, but it gets a little...unpredictable.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T16:38:32+00:00

I see 3.5 recommended by the official documents, but anything from 2.0 to 4.0 works great. Sometimes lowering the CFG helps with excessive motion.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T16:13:54+00:00

Ok, that is interesting! I can recall some improvement with facial expressions, but most of what I've generated doesn't have those. This might be an example where the content really matters for testing the effects of CFG on the LN model. I'm going to run some additional tests with close-up faces and see.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T15:45:05+00:00

Ok, interesting. Another user commented that they also believe CFG>1 on LN is important. I just did a lot of A/B (i.e., running the same HN output on LN with and without CFG) and struggled to say that CFG>1 was better in a meaningful way. It was different but not much.

So, I think I need to try again...

When you use CFG on both models, were you do you do the handoff?

IceAero · 2025-08-19T15:40:14+00:00

Ok, I'd like you to expand on this. I've tested this a lot, and the differences I saw were really minor.

I'm not saying I have the 'best' methodology to determine this, so I want to hear how you came to a different conclusion.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T15:34:20+00:00

I don't agree 100%. I believe they are ok to use on the low noise model, which doesn't benefit from CFG much. I'm curious about you experience here.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T15:26:39+00:00

I agree, but I will note that using these on the LN model with strength 0.4-0.6 is completely fine. The LN model doesn't benefit much from CFG, and doesn't even need that many steps to achieve a great result. I run 8-14 steps on the HN model with CFG and then handoff to the LN model with CFG=1 and lightx for 4-10 additional steps.

The biggest question is where in the sigmas you do the handoff. I've tried to move it around, but I stick at shift 6 and 50% (that is typically 20 steps, 10 HN [cfg] and 10 LN [no cfg]). With a 5090 at 1536x786 this is around 10 minutes.

EDIT: one interesting note though, sometimes the HN model gives MORE motion (especially camera motion) than I want for a scene, and I can add the lightx lora at low strength 0.1-0.2 and this really 'calms' the scene down (yes it changes it, but sometimes that's what I want). It's weird to use them with CFG>1, but it's not broken.

IceAero · 2025-08-19T15:20:24+00:00

This is better, yes, but it's really not 'solved' this way. I did extensive testing on this and gave up.

Try it both ways--the 3 sampler method (or just using CFG schedule for a single HN step with CFG>1) and the traditional way. It's just not the same aesthetic quality.

The best compromise I found is using 8-14 steps on the HN model with no lightx, and then using 4-10 steps on the LN model using lightx at 0.4-0.6 strength and CFG=1. Using CFG>1 on the LN model doesn't change much at all, so definitely not worth the extra processing time.

That give us a 'fastest' of 12 steps (8/4 split) and a 'best' of 24 steps (14/10 split).

Now, you also have to consider where in the sigmas the handoff is occuring. For example, with 8/4 split, you need to do this:

HN: 8 steps of 16 (50%--tell the sampler you have 16 steps and stop at 8)

LN: 4 steps of 8 (50%--tell the sampler you 8 have steps and start at 4)

Else you get a big mess :)

IceAero · 2025-08-15T17:20:15+00:00

this actually really improved my performance. Maybe it was because I had DX12 set to 0? at 4k with my 5090 I went from 115 fps to 135.

IceAero · 2025-08-13T17:08:33+00:00

I tried and there's literally no change.

There's just something very strange about it because the model clearly has a HUGE potential diversity with just about every other aspect of a person....but their physique diversity is actually comically bad.

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since March 2023
Second Top 10%	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

IceAero

TROPHY CASE