MQN
Re: MQN
Yes, this is magic!sbgk wrote:uploaded so called 100000 versions of control/play sse2 versions, have called them 24 bit sse2 10ms etc versions. All sample rates are aligned to 10ms except for 24/176 and 24/192 which are 5ms.
Does sound blooming good.
have tested 16/44, 24/48, 24/96 & 24/192 successfully, seems to be a problem with 24/176
R1.1 fixes the 24/176 issue
(still can't play >24/48 but I don't care anymore)
PC: CPU Q8400, 8GB Ram, Windows 8.1 x64
DAC: HRT Music Streamer II+, Asus Xonar Essence ST (+ HiEnd DYI upgrades)
DAC: HRT Music Streamer II+, Asus Xonar Essence ST (+ HiEnd DYI upgrades)
Re: MQN
R1.1 was a bit flat so uploaded R1.2, found some settings that seem to have added some excitement back into the sound.
It's back to the outrageous sound I remember from the early days of MQn, except about 10 x better.
Listening to Claire Martin and the sound is very live.
If this is a keeper shall do the other versions when I have time.
It's back to the outrageous sound I remember from the early days of MQn, except about 10 x better.
Listening to Claire Martin and the sound is very live.
If this is a keeper shall do the other versions when I have time.
Re: MQN
Was reading on another forum today where the recommendation is xp no point or need to bother with 7 or that dastardly thing W8!sbgk wrote:uploaded win7 versions of 2.0 and 1.2darkpink wrote:It would be nice if a win7 version of 1.2 would be uploaded, any chance?
I don't rate win7, always gave a hard edge with wasapi
GroupBuySD DAC/First Watt AlephJ/NigeAmp/Audio PC's/Lampi L4.5 Dac/ Groupbuy AD1862 DHT Dac /Quad ESL63's.Tannoy Legacy Cheviots.
Re: MQN
some new things learnt from the latest versions, the assembly versions still sound better, the intrinsics should be best but the way the compiler interprets the instructions means it uses non optimal instructions and reorders things which affect sq. so back to assembly. also my avx version has stopped working for some reason.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:57 am
Re: MQN
Probably Computer Audio Asylum? Well, that was the recc. over there as of maybe up to a year or two ago, but mainly because the forum's members had stripped Win XP down to a miniscule install (as low as 16 MB), which worked well with the cPlay/cMP project's player/shell (which also started there). Others just preferred Win XP's "house" sound over Win 7 (and, as is the case with a few holdouts over there, even Win 8/8.1).sbgk wrote:some new things learnt from the latest versions, the assembly versions still sound better, the intrinsics should be best but the way the compiler interprets the instructions means it uses non optimal instructions and reorders things which affect sq. so back to assembly. also my avx version has stopped working for some reason.
As far as I see it, the problem with proceeding with Win XP, besides the obvious support issues, is the lack of a robust 64-bit implementation - I could be wrong, but I'm convinced much of how MQn has managed to sound as good as it does is due to, in part, its 64-bit architecture, along with the host of other newer WASAPI/Windows Audio Stack/C++ Compiling features that Gordon seems to be exploiting that Win XP likely would not support.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:57 am
Re: MQN
Thanks for the effort/help Gordon, et. al, but I'm pretty convinced given how my DAC has reacted to various mqnplay/control combinations that there's something incompatible with Gordon's coding efforts and my DAC's C-Media USB receiver chip. R2.0 and the 10ms versions for win7 all resulted in crackling. Not so with onboard Realtek sound. No bother, though, since 2.71 intel v2 still sounds relatively amazing.