MQN

[cvrle59]

Corrected...I don't need that kind of guilt...lol

[sima66]

Comparing 2.7 with 2.68's, I can say that 2.7 is another step forward. Nice, tight (b)ass, more quiet and with all the micro-details.
Another tiny curtain has been removed between me and my speakers.
Looks like we are heading in the right way.

Thanks Sbgk.

[wushuliu]

Guys, there are a couple of people on another forum who can't seem to get mqn running. Any ideas?

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?to ... icseen#new

[jesuscheung]

2.68 - 2.70 intel sse2
-all very similar with small variations. not easy for compare.

vs 2.66 sse4 v2
-v2 is much easier on the ears- very noticeable on headphones. headphones users most likely should prefer v2 despite v2 is less correct in terms of weight/power.
-after listening to v2 on neutral headphones, 2.68 - 2.70 have noticeable earaches. 2.70 intel sse2 has more over others.

vs 2.66 sse dqa dqa 2cl mfence
-again, mfence is one of the top musical versions. again, mfence isn't as correct as one would have hoped. i would prefer mfence over 2.68 to 2.70 for a lot of music.
-mfence is another great for headphone version.

vs 2.64 sse4 intel xmm
-this is my favorite sse4 version. it is even more incorrect!
-with music that doesn't reveal its incorrectness/flaws, xmm is amazingly musical and enjoyable.
-again, this is a great headphone version.
-its musicality overrides its small annoying earaches.

vs 2.58 tot align
-i use this as a reference version for correctness in stage and tune. real real real.
-back in CA thread, lekt calls this version as very correct. the first version that classical music is listenable on a PC.
-this version is unmusical. has defects.

vs 2.51 rax no zi
-it still has something to offer. i can't tell what it is.
-i don't really use it anymore.

vs 2.57 see4
-very good timing on vocal emotion.
-obsoleted as it has nothing else to offer.

vs 2.61
-extremely focus but wrong.

vs 2.53 eac
-a new sensation! reminds us of the good old days! it has a lot of earaches. you are warned.

vs 2.41 movq
-the sound finishes in the air with vibration remaining. that's how i remember it. hasn't listened to it for a while.
-it's the only 2.4x version i have kept in my folder.

vs 2.1x - 2.3x
-doesn't exist in my folder anymore.
-may have to listen to them again.

vs the very old 2.82
-very good for piano. good music soul. weight/depth/crispiness are excellent.
-any version doesn't best this version in piano is wrong.
-the tune is a bit bright on piano.

[cvrle59]

All I can say, that I like 2.70 a lot as well as clock rate of 464400.

[jesuscheung]

All I can say, that I like 2.70 a lot as well as clock rate of 464400.

464400 6 digits sounds good on your Naim DAC-V1? your DAC is at least 2 digits better than mind haha.

is there a buffer setting in your DAC? what did you set it?

[cvrle59]

All I can say, that I like 2.70 a lot as well as clock rate of 464400.

464400 6 digits sounds good on your Naim DAC-V1? your DAC is at least 2 digits better than mind haha.

is there a buffer setting in your DAC? what did you set it?

I don't think I can change buffer, or at least, I don't know how to do it. I always changed buffer in a player (JRiver/Foobar) in pre-MQn era. I am just monitoring it as its playing, and something like 50% or 10ms are bouncing up and down little bit. So I would say it is 20ms according how I read that info.

[jesuscheung]

All I can say, that I like 2.70 a lot as well as clock rate of 464400.

464400 6 digits sounds good on your Naim DAC-V1? your DAC is at least 2 digits better than mind haha.

is there a buffer setting in your DAC? what did you set it?

I don't think I can change buffer, or at least, I don't know how to do it. I always changed buffer in a player (JRiver/Foobar) in pre-MQn era. I am just monitoring it as its playing, and something like 50% or 10ms are bouncing up and down little bit. So I would say it is 20ms according how I read that info.

i see!

i assume you had default 10000 clockrate in the old days.
do you remember the best buffer size for jriver/foobar back then?

[goon-heaven]

tony
try 2.69 the r2 version!
i think its great

goon
re-download the mqn files again maybe corrupt

Yeah. I'll try. Corrupt? I better download myself 1st

Actually the mqn files come from my known working WS2012 R1 stock.

r2 evaluation copy or rtm?

maybe install visual studio 2013 to be sure, really shouldn't be necessary though

r2 eval

But the other thing that is different is the install method
http://agnipulse.com/2012/11/windows-to ... ndows-7-8/
as you suggested.

R1 installed using
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/03 ... umb-drive/
works without hitch, but that method did not work when I tried it for R2.


Will try R1 install using your method to help determine whether it is R2 or the install method that is causing the issue.

[nige2000]

[
r2 eval

But the other thing that is different is the install method
http://agnipulse.com/2012/11/windows-to ... ndows-7-8/
as you suggested.

R1 installed using
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/03 ... umb-drive/
works without hitch, but that method did not work when I tried it for R2.


Will try R1 install using your method to help determine whether it is R2 or the install method that is causing the issue.

not the install method

try the r2 rtm