MQN
Re: MQN
+12channelaudio wrote:I think we are all just splitting hairs now guys!
With so many varieties of MQN that sound great, shouldn't we all just select the revision that suits our system?
Is it not pointless/fruitless trying to find the ultimate MQN version (when its already so good)? we all run different OS's and configs, different system components.... I'm not sure their will ever be a winner, am I wrong?
I am also not sure there's much more to gain by endless tweaking, when much bigger gains can be had with small component changes such as USB to spdif converters, amps, speakers, room acoustic treatment or dare I say it equalisation/room compensation (yes I said equalisation).
I think functionality should be the next stage of development...
How much functionality can we put back into MQN without affecting its sound?
I would be one to vote for html control, ipad control or similar.
Or how about network streaming?
Thoughts?
[I would be one to vote for html control, ipad control or similar.
Or how about network streaming?]
Of course, any controls that degrade SQ materially are not worth considering for this project, but has anyone had the opportunity to test that?
An approach would be to have code to do control as you propose that can be switched on or off. Would enable A/B comparison, but also would enlarge the potential audience if it was a simple option to have control or switch it off. Best of both worlds?
I suspect many of us are also keen for Gordon to develop a KS version, as everyone, including Gordon, acknowledges that it is a technically superior option compared to WASAPI and one adopted by competitors. But it is also a difficult technical challenge.
Maplin XM21X 12V float charging A123 26650 LiFePO4 battery/Maxwell Supercap PSU for Mitac PD10-BI J1900 Bay Trail, WTFPlay, Hiface Evo, Bow Technologies 1704 NOS DAC, StereoKnight TVC, Quad II monoblocks, ZU Audio Druid Mk4/Method Sub
-
- Posts: 2491
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:09 pm
Re: MQN
pretty sure plenty of programs already exist that remotely execute an executable (e.g. mqn)
just need to find one that affects SQ the least.
just need to find one that affects SQ the least.
Re: MQN
We've said many a time when previous versions have appeared that " this is the one " . And yet Gordon keeps tweaking the code and MQN gets better and better.
To me anything peripheral to the sound , like remote control is unimportant.
I hope sbgk never stops developing his player for the sound, although I know that somewhere a limit will be reached when no more improvements are possible.
To me anything peripheral to the sound , like remote control is unimportant.
I hope sbgk never stops developing his player for the sound, although I know that somewhere a limit will be reached when no more improvements are possible.
Asrock z87m extreme4, i5 4670K, winserver2012 R2, paul pang usb card v1, sotm dx usb, minidsp 4x10 Hd, rotel 1066 amps, linkwitz LX521 speakers.
-
- Posts: 2491
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:09 pm
Re: MQN
3.53 little better in many micro ways.
prefer 3.43 because it is less intense less strain than all software.
even headphones sound can feel free.
prefer 3.43 because it is less intense less strain than all software.
even headphones sound can feel free.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:07 am
Re: MQN
JC my comments were meant to be constructive.jesuscheung wrote:cannot think of single functionality i want...2channelaudio wrote: I think functionality should be the next stage of development...
How much functionality can we put back into MQN without affecting its sound?
I would be one to vote for html control, ipad control or similar.
Or how about network streaming?
Thoughts?
starting to think functionalities are for losers. no offense
in my low end setup
enable LAN = -5% SQ
plugin a mouse = -1-5% SQ
1 GPU = -5%
2 GPU = -7%
1 USB port = -0.5%
10 USB ports = -10%
....
pretty sure i lost about 400-500% SQ with "funtionalities".
maybe you are so deep underwater starting to give up hehehe
I am suggesting:
If SBJK can produce MQN, he can possibly produce a version of MQN with control that sounds similar.
I think you would agree a package with SQ and convenience is the ultimate rendering solution.
Not sure that is giving up?! I still like great audio and more importantly music....
Sound quality can still remain the most important factor, to qualify functionality additions.
my 2 cents....
-
- Posts: 2491
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:09 pm
Re: MQN
sorry, my comments tend to be direct and offensive.
Re: MQN
thought 3.53 sounded pretty good, shall go back and listen to 3.43.jesuscheung wrote:3.53 little better in many micro ways.
prefer 3.43 because it is less intense less strain than all software.
even headphones sound can feel free.
should be able to have fwd, back, track select, pause etc without affecting MQn in any way.
streaming is incompatible with MQn
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:07 am
Re: MQN
That would be great.... great newssbgk wrote:thought 3.53 sounded pretty good, shall go back and listen to 3.43.jesuscheung wrote:3.53 little better in many micro ways.
prefer 3.43 because it is less intense less strain than all software.
even headphones sound can feel free.
should be able to have fwd, back, track select, pause etc without affecting MQn in any way.
streaming is incompatible with MQn
Some control would be nice.
Re: MQN
I was out for some days and last version tested by me was 3.31, so I have to try ALL new versions this weekend. Looking forward to it!sbgk wrote: thought 3.53 sounded pretty good, shall go back and listen to 3.43.
should be able to have fwd, back, track select, pause etc without affecting MQn in any way.
streaming is incompatible with MQn
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)