JLP wdm-ks player

[nige2000]

think equipment will always be a factor,
whether that be pc's, usb cables , dacs, amps, interconnects, speakers or software they all have a role to play and will always be limited by their weaknesses
software is unfortunately not everything, but it does have a very large influence on what can be achieved

[Aleg]

ive got tracks i can no longer listen to because of poor recordings and the resolution achieved with my audio pc and mqn

I think most of us here would suffer from that fate, nige2000. ;)

Aleg, personally I believe the system (the constant) is somewhat irrelevant when directly comparing software players (the variable).

Why, because the constant (system) is considered/understood & known when making any qualifications and evaluations concerning the variable (software) influences.

I believe the real issue at hand is SQ is subjective and very difficult to measure quantitatively.
Typically we measure changes in SQ by ear, and therefore one listeners preference over another is purely opinion.

2C

I agree the system is a constant, but IMO the software used is capable of revealing or masking characteristics of the underlying system. Thereby a revealing piece of software can reveal the presence of 'ugly' aspects of an underlying system that would not be shown by a masking/less revealing piece of software and/or would show the absence of ugly' aspects in another and better underlying system.

So I don't agree that changes to a piece of software on the same hardware would only show aspects of that software and not of the underlying hardware.

Cheers

Aleg

[sima66]

2channelaudio, I agree with you on "the system (the constant) is somewhat irrelevant when directly comparing software players (the variable)", but those differences are bigger and more accurate in the better and more revealing systems. The conclusions are easier to be made and more precise.
Something that might sound like noise in one system can be the best detail in a better system, and vice versa.

I also agree with you on "Typically we measure changes in SQ by ear, and therefore one listeners preference over another is purely opinion" , but again I'm back to what I just said, it's much easier to get a proper opinion when you "see clearer", when the noise is presented like noise and details like details.

[nige2000]

2channelaudio, I agree with you on "the system (the constant) is somewhat irrelevant when directly comparing software players (the variable)", but those differences are bigger and more accurate in the better and more revealing systems. The conclusions are easier to be made and more precise.
Something that might sound like noise in one system can be the best detail in a better system, and vice versa.

I also agree with you on "Typically we measure changes in SQ by ear, and therefore one listeners preference over another is purely opinion" , but again I'm back to what I just said, it's much easier to get a proper opinion when you "see clearer", when the noise is presented like noise and details like details.

agree
explained very well

[tony]

Agree with all of the above but if any view like that is expressed elsewhere it is scoffed at. The thinking seems to be revealing systems are just in people's minds.It is a term used by people trying to convince others that the impossible is occurring. i.e that any piece of software or computer audio tweaks can have any impact.

As far as I can see anybody using a linear/battery powered pc is coming to similar interpretations with regard to what they are hearing. I don't think this is a fluke.

If you reviewed all that has been put up here people have generally tried to call a spade a spade. When MQn was found to be better than Jplay people acknowledged it. When JLP is not quiet cutting it yet and maybe never people hear that.

[2channelaudio]

Agree with all of the above but if any view like that is expressed elsewhere it is scoffed at. The thinking seems to be revealing systems are just in people's minds.It is a term used by people trying to convince others that the impossible is occurring. i.e that any piece of software or computer audio tweaks can have any impact.

As far as I can see anybody using a linear/battery powered pc is coming to similar interpretations with regard to what they are hearing. I don't think this is a fluke.

If you reviewed all that has been put up here people have generally tried to call a spade a spade. When MQn was found to be better than Jplay people acknowledged it. When JLP is not quiet cutting it yet and maybe never people hear that.

I agree with all the comments made, especially with Tony's above....
...Yes I run linear power injection on my Yellowtec USB > AES PUC2lite... why? because it makes a difference, but whether this is relevant (and needs to be detailed prior to me posting) and somehow validates my views/experience regarding what I am hearing is questionable.

What about the real variable the listener?
Should we all get hearing tests and put that on our posts to help justify the comments we make?! lol

Of course the system influences SQ, and what can and can't be heard in mixes.....This is unavoidable.
This was not my point.

The real message I was trying to convey is you don't need a 40k hifi system to quantify or pick flaws in software.
A listeners experience is based on many key influencing factors, none of which can be controlled (excluding the software released) in this forum.

The differences between Mqn and JLP v27 were pretty night and day, most posters agreed...
I'm sure the system mix was considerable enough to draw indicative conclusions re the software's performance at that point in time.
2CA

[Aleg]

Agree with all of the above but if any view like that is expressed elsewhere it is scoffed at. The thinking seems to be revealing systems are just in people's minds.It is a term used by people trying to convince others that the impossible is occurring. i.e that any piece of software or computer audio tweaks can have any impact.

As far as I can see anybody using a linear/battery powered pc is coming to similar interpretations with regard to what they are hearing. I don't think this is a fluke.

If you reviewed all that has been put up here people have generally tried to call a spade a spade. When MQn was found to be better than Jplay people acknowledged it. When JLP is not quiet cutting it yet and maybe never people hear that.

I agree with all the comments made, especially with Tony's above....
...Yes I run linear power injection on my Yellowtec USB > AES PUC2lite... why? because it makes a difference, but whether this is relevant (and needs to be detailed prior to me posting) and somehow validates my views/experience regarding what I am hearing is questionable.

What about the real variable the listener?
Should we all get hearing tests and put that on our posts to help justify the comments we make?! lol

Of course the system influences SQ, and what can and can't be heard in mixes.....This is unavoidable.
This was not my point.

The real message I was trying to convey is you don't need a 40k hifi system to quantify or pick flaws in software.
A listeners experience is based on many key influencing factors, none of which can be controlled (excluding the software released) in this forum.

The differences between Mqn and JLP v27 were pretty night and day, most posters agreed...
I'm sure the system mix was considerable enough to draw indicative conclusions re the software's performance at that point in time.
2CA

+1

[jesuscheung]

....
What about the real variable the listener?
Should we all get hearing tests and put that on our posts to help justify the comments we make?! lol
.....
2CA

coding audio streaming is simple. testing is difficult.
there exists 1 million ways to do one thing.

it is important for people to post testing results.

to justify testing, just a b compare two versions. comment on the differences/changes. this can be verified by anyone.

don't be afraid to make mistake in judgement about SQ. few people in the world is able to make absolute judgement. in which case, they don't need help from people testing.

[erin]

Hi all

Gordon posted this reply to 2C's experience with MQn on CA.

Hi 2channel,

just saw your blog entry for mqn

2channelaudio: MQn minimalist PC music player - The king of sound quality

How resolving is your system ? Just wanted to know so I could calibrate your feedback a bit.

I know jlp is far from the finished product, but I thought I was hearing further into the music with v30 than I was able to do with MQn ie some things MQn just couldn't resolve, but could easily follow with jlp. Still think the streaming aspect of jlp not helping.

I think he has a valid point in that all experience is relative to the system it was experienced with. That is not just the hardware/software part of it but also the music used and the listening room. That latter aspect is difficult to take into account when talking about your experience, but I think everybody should mention what gear was used when listening. So a call to all is to put your gear in your signature. This is not to say some is better than another and therefore more valuable/reliable judgement, but certain systems have a certain character.

Resolving systems on the other hand are a double-edged sword.
They can show good music beautifully, but they will also show every weakness in the playback chain. This being badly recorded or mastered music, bad software players, lousy audioPC's, bad PSU's, etc.

So if one is using a laptop e.g. as playback device, IMO, you will invariably get a noisy music signal, as they are the worst devices for music playback esp. if they contain spinning discs as well.
In such a case one might describe a recording or a player as 'digital sounding' while it may not be so, but due to the revealing character of the player and the playback chain one might just be hearing noise from the playback device. Consequently some may steer away from that player, not because it is intrinsically bad, but just because it is showing weaknesses elsewhere which you don't like hearing.


So do you think a more resolving system would show JLP to be the better player?

I know I haven't got the most extremely resolving system, that is, I know there are even more resolving and revealing Naim components, but it can still show a lot.

It is my experience that MQn can show at least as much of the music and soundstage as JLP does, but MQn can show much more microdetails and textures in the tones than JLP can, which in JLP sound flat by comparison.

Would you consider your setup resolving enough to make this comparison between MQn and JLP?

The remark from Gordon creates a reciprocal question however, does anyone know what setup Gordon is using when judging sound from the players?
It would be interesting for me to know what kind of level of hifi and audioPC he is using and how it compares to mine so I know how to position my experiences in relation to his.

This is an interesting but difficult topic, which I have found on other forums never to reach a conclusive answer, but is always nice to follow.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg,
it’s interesting discussion to have.

The problems I see with listing your gear is:
• Other people might not have heard your gear. Therefore can have no point of reference
• People have incorrectly preconceived ideas about your gear.
• Published reviews of your gear are inconsistent with your own personal findings.
• What if your gear is DIY? – Nobody else has heard it.
• What if your gear is modified?
• What if you gear cost $5?
• What if your gear cost $300,000? What does the cost matter really? Will people judge because of the cost?
• So many possible combinations of gear, no one can possibly know what component X sounds when driving speaker Y, fed with source Z
• How big is your room?
• Please list the room modes?
• Anyone got a trace of their room?
• Equalised or non-equalised?
• Passive or active crossover?


At the end of the day, we are all discussing sound – our own perception of it from our own different systems. When someone writes on a forum that they can hear no difference between X and Y, which are different, then I make my own judgement regarding their hearing and their system. This is for all of us to do privately.
With regard to anything to do with my audio system, if I change something or anything, I can usually hear a difference, and these days try to qualify my own observations by going back to previously used gear, or software, or cables or whatever to gain some perspective. To gain perspective is very important! Are other people going back and trying older versions of MQN JLP etc?

Sometimes things do sound a little different. It is very important for the individual to decide if this difference is an important difference, or an unimportant difference.

If someone says something sounds better, it is up to them to say why. If they are able to say “ I hear more microdetails and vibrations” or whatever, then that is a good way of expressing an observation. If someone says “bass is stronger and deeper” using MQN vs JLP, then this is a good observation. They have begun to qualify their statement.

We must have some faith that people know what they are talking about. If not, there is nothing wrong with politely asking for more information, but ultimately we must have good faith that a person is telling the truth as they hear it.
Most people on this forum are really good helpful interesting people. I enjoy it here very much.

If I was to throw an idea out there:
Perhaps it’s better to say what sort of sound you prefer. Or what sort of sound offends you?
I’ve met people who have told me that they don’t like big bass sounds – it hurts their ears. Also some people don’t like too much treble for the same reason.

I'm not sure I like the question "How resolving is your system ?" because there is no such thing as the perfect audio component. Even amongst the "most resolving" equipment, in my experience, the presentation of the sound changes, but all good gear is clear, dynamic, and satisfying to listen to when matched properly.

I think the short answer is that people build sound systems. People choose equipment based on various factors, and price is one of them.
If we all ask ourselves if we had unlimited money what system would we buy?
If we say we will keep just one component we presently own and use, then we know we own at least one good component.

Perhaps an appropriate answer is "my system is resolving enough to hear differences between MQN and JLP"

[jesuscheung]

...
Perhaps an appropriate answer is "my system is resolving enough to hear differences between MQN and JLP"

don't understand... maybe one is aging to have to ask such a question... having ear impairment?

buy some ear cleansing product. might help