MQN

[LowOrbit]

You are making a valid point. My only concern would be that maybe not all conversion algorithms from one format to the other are perfect or equal. Offline, non-realtime conversion should create equal results in different players if the conversion is done properly. Realtime is a bit more of a lottery due to the many other processes sharing cpu time.

In MQn the conversion is done before play starts. Even if realtime I think the conversion is still perfect (flac->wav/pcm, just that the additional load on the cpu has a negative effect on SQ.

Yes SBGK - the particular remark was related to a comment made a few posts back about which app to use to convert your flacs to wav, largely unrelated to MQn - except the realtime conversion, which I know you don't do anyway.

Just had a necessarily quick listen to 2.63 SSE4 between conference calls - first impressions - truly the best version. If you can listen to John Renborn's Snap A Little Owl (album same name) in previous versions, there was much information about the fingers moving on the frets, but it was not all clearly linked to the notes being played. Now there is sufficient information coming through to almost visualise the guitarists fingers moving around.

And female vocals are (whilst not a big metric for me) rendered with a realism not heard before and no untoward sibilance.

Many thanks - I look forward to spending more time with this version tonight.

Mark

[LowOrbit]

As the OS seems to be so important (or perhaps minimising the CPU load etc by optimising the environment, ie less processes running etc) what about trying something like Windows Embedded 8.1 or even trying a very simple WAV - PCM player on a completely stripped down Linux system - I would have thought it would be much easier to get optimal "Bits" to a DAC in perfect timing / uncorrupted by noise etc with less other software competing for the CPU.

If all testing suggests that more CPU cycles equal more noise and deteriorates sound quality then wouldn't it follow that Windows just isn't going to be the best OS?

Just a thought
Clive

Hi Clive

Certainly many highend streaming solutions use Linux as a base. Not sure if that's because it's free, or because it performs better.

However, MQn Player seems to have started as an exploration of what is possible on the Windows platform (given it's generally available and easier to use for most people). Certainly most of the early comparatives were with JPlay and other Windows player software.

My own experiments with Linux yielded a sound on a par with a good one pc Jplay set up, nothing exceptional even with dedicated Linux builds. Daphile (LMS on Debian iirc) came closest.

A dedicated audio OS would be optimal, but require a lot of work and a common hardware platform - and then you're back to emulating existing hardware streamers.

[Clive101]

Hi LowOrbit

It's interesting and I find somehow illogical why Linux isn't better but have heard lots of people saying Windows (even with all it's inherent audio problems) when setup correctly generally always is better than a dedicated Linux solution (at least with JPLAY).

I use a single PC setup with JPLAY - very optimised and bare bones (no WIFI, no Networking, no NAS only WAV files and no other software running) and find that better than a JPLAY 2 PC setup, but obviously at a lack of functionality in terms of remote control - but Sound Quality is most important!

Regards
Clive

[Clive]

If all testing suggests that more CPU cycles equal more noise and deteriorates sound quality then wouldn't it follow that Windows just isn't going to be the best OS?

I expect this the case. Windows though is the dominant O/S which many people have available along with skills to get the player running. Linux would be a great alternative but it would only appeal to users who know Linux already or who are prepared to invest time in it.

[LowOrbit]

Hi LowOrbit

It's interesting and I find somehow illogical why Linux isn't better but have heard lots of people saying Windows (even with all it's inherent audio problems) when setup correctly generally always is better than a dedicated Linux solution (at least with JPLAY).

I use a single PC setup with JPLAY - very optimised and bare bones (no WIFI, no Networking, no NAS only WAV files and no other software running) and find that better than a JPLAY 2 PC setup, but obviously at a lack of functionality in terms of remote control - but Sound Quality is most important!

Regards
Clive

Yes, I expected more from Linux, especially the stripped down versions.

JPlay on one PC can sound very good I agree, especially with an optimised, dedicated setup like yours. My main grumble with it was the USB stick/Hibernate faff.

Mark

[Aleg]

Hi LowOrbit

It's interesting and I find somehow illogical why Linux isn't better but have heard lots of people saying Windows (even with all it's inherent audio problems) when setup correctly generally always is better than a dedicated Linux solution (at least with JPLAY).

I use a single PC setup with JPLAY - very optimised and bare bones (no WIFI, no Networking, no NAS only WAV files and no other software running) and find that better than a JPLAY 2 PC setup, but obviously at a lack of functionality in terms of remote control - but Sound Quality is most important!

Regards
Clive

Clive

AFAIK, the programming techniques used are specific for the Windows OS (at least for JPlay that's the case) so can't be transfered one-on-one to another type of OS. Even between OS-versions from Windows not all techniques that are used are available.

Cheers

Aleg

[Aleg]

Aleg, yes you are right, players are better or worse because of their different software techniques and their processing. We've learned this lesson with JPLAY and now again with MQn. But don't you think that bit-identical files should sound the same, if same system and same player software is used? I don't see any logical explanation of how bit-identical files could reflect their different creation processes. Because the information they contain is identical. This is my personal view, but if you have an explanation, I'm all ears.

Taggart

All things being equal, the sound of the same file on the same machine with the same player should sound the same.
Computers are deterministic machines! But storing the file on a different type of disc SSD instead of HDD or on CF will have effect on sound quality, because of the noise effect of the spinning disk and technically different methods of data transfer used by SSD and by CF-disk.

But as LowOrbit says one doesn't exactly know what other processes are interfering/using the CPU at the same time, which can cause additional noise not related to the actual playback itself.
Therefore the OS-optimisations by AudioPhil and CAD try to reduce the number of processes running and try to increase the priority of the audio-playback processes. Also using affinity to give the audio playback at least its own core is trying to achieve / improve on this.

But unless there will be a dedicated OS that does no other thing than playback audio, one will never achieve the optimum.
A dedicated OS will probably have to be created by oneself as firmware for a SOC or DSP-chip?!

Cheers

Aleg

[LowOrbit]

It's possible that adapting something like MQn to run natively on a Wandboard or similar would be doable (there's a group adapting it to run LMS, I think).

That was other processes could be kept to a minimum - but again you're back to a dedicated hardware streamer, really.

[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.

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.

That's what I thought also, but looks like it's not the case. I can vouch only for the sound.
Everything was 100% identical when I did the test (in the end anybody can try). Both files were strait in C drive and renamed with 1 and 2.
That's another "discussion" what I have with my friend "how can be possible that the files played strait from C drive and "renamed", can sound better the same files in their regular folders and with full name". To me that is another big difference.

[jesuscheung]

boring! minimizing number of processes have been discussed too many times!

try control which driver/IRQ is handled by the exact CPU you set! so MQn can truly have a dedicated core.

this can be achieved by:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows ... 63378.aspx

for anyone interested in experimenting. you don't know what you doing. don't do it.

i haven't fully tried it yet.