MQN

[Clive]

weird im happy not to listen to 2.62 again not good,
2.62 rax might deserve more trial

think the cp setting works. not sure about rax. am going to do a 2.61 version with cp and without rax.

Don't read too much into my rax comment, I've reached the point of confusion between the versions. What I do know is that 2.60 and 2.62 versions are more to my taste in my system and room.

[sima66]

I might be a bit out of topic, but I believe that this is very important!
Since we all need WAV files to convert from FLAC, I would strongly suggest using DBPower instead (my mistake) JRIVER.
I just compared the two and difference is very noticeable in every aspect. I wish I did this comparation long time ago, when I converted 90% of my files.

BTW, WAV sound better than FLAC in any case (JRIVER, JPLAY and probably will with MQn).
Just my 2 cents.

[jesuscheung]

2.61, 2.62, 2.63

not sure about 2.61 and 2.62. better timing, clarity. didn't find special about them.

2.63. this might be the first version while it is somewhat mellow but also contains a lot of micro-details. focus is good. keep pushing in this direction. i feel that a musical version will come.

2.63 should be fuller. as in, for a big live concert of 100k people, i am not feeling it is as big as it should be. rax no zi and tot align are better at this.

[taggart]

I might be a bit out of topic, but I believe that this is very important!
Since we all need WAV files to convert from FLAC, I would strongly suggest using DBPower instead (my mistake) JRIVER.
I just compared the two and difference is very noticeable in every aspect. I wish I did this comparation long time ago, when I converted 90% of my files.

BTW, WAV sound better than FLAC in any case (JRIVER, JPLAY and probably will with MQn).
Just my 2 cents.

FLAC is a lossless codec. Decoding a FLAC file should result in the same original WAV file by both decoding engines (dBpoweramp or JRMC). The result must be identical. Did you compare the resulting wav files bitwise? Bit identical files will sound the same, at least, if they are located in the same folder on disk.

[LowOrbit]

Lots of opinions and great feedback over the last few hours and I'm about to add mine. But it must be getting difficult for our hardworking developer to keep a clear view on our micro-consensus!

I have not had a chance since late yesterday afternoon to keep up, so 2.61 SSE4 is current on my system. I confess it is the best to my ears. For me the most appealing sound is rich with timing and dynamics and microdetail. My thinking is that some albums will have a rich, full bodied tone, others will sound a little thin. Some will sound live, others processed. Accurate systems will reflect this, not attempt to present a certain tonal balance just because it's what the listener prefers.

My approach has been to seek the most accurate representation and then voice my system to suit my ears and room. (I never listen with headphones, don't like them.)

I never stepped away from JPlay or XXHighend (or even JRiver) because they sounded thin or digital - I just wanted the most accurate (which, if the musicians are any good, will be the most musical) delivery of what's on the disc (or in the file). MQn - in almost all iterations - has given me more of what I listen for, and it gets better over time - even if I don't gel with every version (2.60 CP doesn't excite my ears).

[Aleg]

I might be a bit out of topic, but I believe that this is very important!
Since we all need WAV files to convert from FLAC, I would strongly suggest using DBPower instead (my mistake) JRIVER.
I just compared the two and difference is very noticeable in every aspect. I wish I did this comparation long time ago, when I converted 90% of my files.

BTW, WAV sound better than FLAC in any case (JRIVER, JPLAY and probably will with MQn).
Just my 2 cents.

FLAC is a lossless codec. Decoding a FLAC file should result in the same original WAV file by both decoding engines (dBpoweramp or JRMC). The result must be identical. Did you compare the resulting wav files bitwise? Bit identical files will sound the same, at least, if they are located in the same folder on disk.

Taggart
The bits aren't important because they are the same, but the difference in processing required is what is the significant factor in these sound quality differences. That's also where players like MQn and JPlay find their improvements.

Cheers

Aleg

[nige2000]

I might be a bit out of topic, but I believe that this is very important!
Since we all need WAV files to convert from FLAC, I would strongly suggest using DBPower instead (my mistake) JRIVER.
I just compared the two and difference is very noticeable in every aspect. I wish I did this comparation long time ago, when I converted 90% of my files.

BTW, WAV sound better than FLAC in any case (JRIVER, JPLAY and probably will with MQn).
Just my 2 cents.

FLAC is a lossless codec. Decoding a FLAC file should result in the same original WAV file by both decoding engines (dBpoweramp or JRMC). The result must be identical. Did you compare the resulting wav files bitwise? Bit identical files will sound the same, at least, if they are located in the same folder on disk.

Taggart
The bits aren't important because they are the same, but the difference in processing required is what is the significant factor in these sound quality differences. That's also where players like MQn and JPlay find their improvements.

Cheers

Aleg

maybe there is something we can agree on ;)

[Aleg]

Lots of opinions and great feedback over the last few hours and I'm about to add mine. But it must be getting difficult for our hardworking developer to keep a clear view on our micro-consensus!

I have not had a chance since late yesterday afternoon to keep up, so 2.61 SSE4 is current on my system. I confess it is the best to my ears. For me the most appealing sound is rich with timing and dynamics and microdetail. My thinking is that some albums will have a rich, full bodied tone, others will sound a little thin. Some will sound live, others processed. Accurate systems will reflect this, not attempt to present a certain tonal balance just because it's what the listener prefers.

My approach has been to seek the most accurate representation and then voice my system to suit my ears and room. (I never listen with headphones, don't like them.)

I never stepped away from JPlay or XXHighend (or even JRiver) because they sounded thin or digital - I just wanted the most accurate (which, if the musicians are any good, will be the most musical) delivery of what's on the disc (or in the file). MQn - in almost all iterations - has given me more of what I listen for, and it gets better over time - even if I don't gel with every version (2.60 CP doesn't excite my ears).

LowOrbit

You express exactly the feelings I had this morning when reading some of the comments.
I have a feeling people are expressing the comments based on the type of sound they prefer from their system, not based on the most accurate representation of the sound perse.
In my opinion a player should be as neutral in sound and detailed as possible with the maximum of microdetails and overtones.

When I read about people requiring more and more bass tones, while in my system that same version is already way beyond any naturalness in reproduction of low frequencies of acoustic instruments, then I think these people are searching for a sound they like and prefer but which may not be accurate, natural and neutral at all.

It makes me weary of where this MQn player is heading to.
What is a proper reference point for the developer to aim for? I don't think it is in all the different opinions of single people who all have their preferences and room settings.

Some people seem to prefer a good TT-playback as a reference point, but the medium Vinyl is very limited in frequency response and mastering for Vinyl uses very specific EQ-methods trying to hide the shortcomings of the medium. So why should we aim for that?

I admit it is difficult to define a good reference point, which IMHO should be accurate reproduction of live sound. But when you don't have access to the live sound and have to rely on recordings that have been tampered with (by the recording and mastering engineers) and when all playback chains/systems sound differently, room accoustics are different, people have different preferences. Where do you find the common ground for a well defined a broadly accepted reference point?

I will follow the progress with great interest. My best sounding MQn is 2.60 SSE4 intel or 2.61 SSE4 intel, but certainly not with the cp or trax extensions.

Cheers

Aleg

[Clive]

LowOrbit and Aleg,

Most of your sentiments I share, where the difference lies between us is our view of accurate. This problem is that none of us have heard the music in the studio, though studio monitors are highly revealing and not the sort of sound most would want in their homes.

I want everything, dynamics, detail/resolution, 3D imaging, the soundstage released from the speakers and a natural tonal balance but above all else a realistic presence in the room. I certainly get huge variation between albums and even tracks so I have a lot of tracks I use for reviewing as using just a few tracks can give a false impression. I know that what some of us found that certian players to have a thinness in the mid-range. The same is true for some makes of cartridges. The mid-range needs some body, as to which is more accurate....well to me live unamplified music does not sound thin. As for bass, well I can tune that with my active bass setup from 18Hz to 100Hz but the all important upper bass needs to be right.

Of course Gordon will chose what suits him, I'm hoping that with his knowledge of what does what to the sound we may end up with a couple of versions of MQn to suit different tastes. The interesting thing is that I've seen system measurements for thin and full sounding systems and they both measure pretty much within acceptable limits, it's not a frequency response thing, there's more to a realistic vocal than just FR.

[nige2000]

Lots of opinions and great feedback over the last few hours and I'm about to add mine. But it must be getting difficult for our hardworking developer to keep a clear view on our micro-consensus!

I have not had a chance since late yesterday afternoon to keep up, so 2.61 SSE4 is current on my system. I confess it is the best to my ears. For me the most appealing sound is rich with timing and dynamics and microdetail. My thinking is that some albums will have a rich, full bodied tone, others will sound a little thin. Some will sound live, others processed. Accurate systems will reflect this, not attempt to present a certain tonal balance just because it's what the listener prefers.

My approach has been to seek the most accurate representation and then voice my system to suit my ears and room. (I never listen with headphones, don't like them.)

I never stepped away from JPlay or XXHighend (or even JRiver) because they sounded thin or digital - I just wanted the most accurate (which, if the musicians are any good, will be the most musical) delivery of what's on the disc (or in the file). MQn - in almost all iterations - has given me more of what I listen for, and it gets better over time - even if I don't gel with every version (2.60 CP doesn't excite my ears).

LowOrbit

You express exactly the feelings I had this morning when reading some of the comments.
I have a feeling people are expressing the comments based on the type of sound they prefer from their system, not based on the most accurate representation of the sound perse.
In my opinion a player should be as neutral in sound and detailed as possible with the maximum of microdetails and overtones.

When I read about people requiring more and more bass tones, while in my system that same version is already way beyond any naturalness in reproduction of low frequencies of acoustic instruments, then I think these people are searching for a sound they like and prefer but which may not be accurate, natural and neutral at all.

It makes me weary of where this MQn player is heading to.
What is a proper reference point for the developer to aim for? I don't think it is in all the different opinions of single people who all have their preferences and room settings.

Some people seem to prefer a good TT-playback as a reference point, but the medium Vinyl is very limited in frequency response and mastering for Vinyl uses very specific EQ-methods trying to hide the shortcomings of the medium. So why should we aim for that?

I admit it is difficult to define a good reference point, which IMHO should be accurate reproduction of live sound. But when you don't have access to the live sound and have to rely on recordings that have been tampered with (by the recording and mastering engineers) and when all playback chains/systems sound differently, room accoustics are different, people have different preferences. Where do you find the common ground for a well defined a broadly accepted reference point?

I will follow the progress with great interest. My best sounding MQn is 2.60 SSE4 intel or 2.61 SSE4 intel, but certainly not with the cp or trax extensions.

Cheers

Aleg

Some very good points there Aleg

i would say theres an element of all those points in the reviews
no-ones system is going to sound the same
Dont know how were going to overcome this

Which jplay engine were you using Aleg?