MQN

[jesuscheung]

i think mqn history is like this

with old mqn.exe, it was like pencil drawing....
before there was a finished product
already moved on to water painting..... i.e. 2.7x onwards
and now mqn is basically oil painting.
resolution/details/dynamic is on the next level...

the difficulty to achieve good painting is also most challenge with oil painting... if anyone even did art in school would know

[nige2000]

Are we not looking for something better than analog and digital
Both are flawed systems the trick is to have a l the resolution and detail While having good musical flow
the best of both

[Aleg]

Who wants analog?

i do!

in the old days, cassette sounded just fine.

nowadays, as long as DAC is involved, $10000 setup can still suck.

analog comes before resolution/details.
i believe that.

Buy a turntable or a cassette adapter :-() LOL


digital audio is capable of more than the old analogue was/is capable of.

Cheers

[jrling]

If memory serves, Gordon's naming of MQn was shifting one letter on for the first two characters in homage to [Linn Sondek] LP12.
Perhaps that gives a clue to what sound he was aiming for?

[Aleg]

If memory serves, Gordon's naming of MQn was shifting one letter on for the first two characters in homage to [Linn Sondek] LP12.
Perhaps that gives a clue to what sound he was aiming for?

That would be a shame of aiming on a medium with limited capabilities compared to modern digital technology, because vinyl as a medium is quite limited:
(quotes come from the blog of Mark Waldrep, a former mastering engineer)

Vinyl is limited:
- in what it can carry in frequency bandwidth and dynamic range
{"Another very common adjustment made to vinyl releases is the extreme elevation of all frequencies between 12-15 kHz. ...“vinyl can’t physically deliver much higher than 15 kHz” ;
"The dynamic range of a traditional 2.0 channel analog tape machines running at 15 ips is about 60-72 dB SNR "},

The dynamic range figures come from the NAGRAMASTER tapedeck which was a professional device used as master device in recording sessions. Vinyl Masters were made from these tapes.


- also the stereo effect is removed for signals in low frequency range
{"..collapse all frequencies below a certain frequency into mono" &
"...low frequencies are routinely folded to mono below a specified corner frequency (usually 50-100 Hz). "}.

All these limitations need not be for digital technology, which can therefore have a much better fidelity than vinyl playback.

If you would like it better than vinyl remains to be seen of course.

There is already much discussion about what is 'better': a truthful recording or a beautiful recording.

cheers

[2channelaudio]

This is a debate most of us here could argue on both sides of the fence.
I personally couldn't care less if my source is analog or digital.

What's important is my music must render with musicality, spectrum balance and transparency.
Without these qualities any source, analog of digital is flawed.

I couldn't care about specs.... they mean very little.
Its all about how the music sounds, how transparent, musical and magical it is.

JC was simply describing the sound wave he was hearing as 'analog' in texture and presentation.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Seemed to spark a little uproar... weird..

I understand what JC means, as would others here, I suspect.
Isn't it funny how enjoyable an 'analog like' presentation is?! After all isn't that what audio is all about, enjoyment? I think audiophile's sometimes get confused between constantly tweaking for more detail and what is actually good music?!

Music is about heart, feeling and emotion not whether the transport aka...vinyl can extend past 15khz...
I'm not sure this is even relevant. I have never craved more top end extension from my TT....

I therefore I don't feel using the term 'analog' to describe a digital source is flawed.
I choose my words more carefully than that these days..... but my positive experience with Mqn has been with more musical revisions.... I.e. 2.59, 4.22....... aka more analog!

In fact when you consider using 'analog SQ/qualities' as a yard stick for digital playback it makes good sense. Especially from a musicality/tonal presentation perspective. Think about it.... PC audio has really only been competitive with a great TT in the last few years. It wasn't really until the advent of specialist usb to spdif converters and DAC development, which allowed digital audio transports to compete with top tier analog transports.

In fact as these product developers refined and improved their 'PC Audio' product offerings, isn't it funny how these products became less digital 'strained' and more musical 'analog like'.

Yet even with so many digital sources and vast amounts of digital content available, we are now seeing music lovers returning to vinyl and TT's (Vinyl sales are on the rise). Its a good thing Gordon understands how to produce a digital player which sounds analog?! ;) lol

Heck, don't get me wrong.... I have no interest in cleaning my vinyl every time I want to casually listen to music. But there is something romantic and tangible which analog brings to the table.
For instance, I love the midrange/vocals a good TT and vinyl record can provide....
Absolutely jitter free vocal rendering.......MAGIC
Im not sure digital can do this..... as well.

Its this magic we should be chasing in our digital pursuits.... these comparisons must be made, so rendering can improve.

I agree with Nige....... We should be looking for something better.
A hybrid... The best of both

A new platform, which is traditional PC free. A different way of doing things.
The idea that the holy grail of audio is somehow presented only in digital form is a misconception in my book.

2CA

[Aleg]

2CA

Thank you for your great write up.

I side with you in the qualities you describe that should be aimed for.

Some people however, put vinyl playback as the godlike form of music reproduction, and I don't agreewith that and try to express that by showing the limited specs of the medium that are somewhat/far of, of what is actually happening in live music in terms of those specs.

I agree that matching vinyl replay is the first step for digital audio, but I think it should not be the end because digital audio doesn't have the inherent limits of vinyl.

I'm not saying vinyl replay is bad and digital is (already) better, but for me, personally, this fluidity can become to mean textureless and gives me the feeling of a slippery eel type of music.
Maybe that's not what you mean by analog and fluidity at all and is it a misunderstanding of your use of these words on my side. Internet is a difficult medium to convey these feelings.

From my dictionary I prefer the term PRaT: Pace (could be seen as flowing in a proper tempo), Rhythm (proper dynamics / speed of upbeat and ending) and Timing (proper leading edge, natural ending and no smearing).
I get enjoyment from listening to all kinds of music that is played on a setup displaying this character.

Don't confuse yourself with thinking I'm just tweaking for detail while loosing eye for the musicality. That's certainly not the case, but details and insight is part of the music and should imho not be lost in a slippery eel type slickness, featurelessness, texturelessness, warmness of nice and beautiful music.
Maybe we have the same goal in mind and is it just the words that keep confusing us and misunderstanding each other. Could well be, but I have heard MQn versions that didn't do it for me, also have heard hifi setups that made people waxing lyrical, but just didn't do it for me.

Therefore back to my credo: tonaly neutral, with as much details as are present in the recording.
The character and voicing of the final replay should be created with the rest of your hifi gear.


Cheers

Aleg

[jrling]

2CA & Aleg

I am appreciative of the time & trouble that you have both taken to express your respective Holy Grails of audio playback and the comprehensive and helpful descriptions that you have expressed in words of what is a conceptual phenomenon.

I happen to agree with you both!

The Holy Grail (for me) has to be to recover as close to what is in the recording we are given by the recording label in the final consumer recoding. That will never be perfect but it is what we have got so make the best of it - warts & all. Pretty much what Aleg says then - "Therefore back to my credo: tonally neutral, with as much details as are present in the recording."

Gordon is trying to achieve that with MQn I believe. But using computer technologies that are mainstream and readily available - Windows and consumer PCs generally speaking. They have massive flaws for reproducing audio and that will never be able to be ignored or 'cured'. MQn has made incredible inroads into minimising those adverse effects, but there is a limit, which I fear that MQn is reaching.

Unfortunately, even if Gordon's output is as perfect as he can make it, then the signal enters another chain of processing through USB to SPDIF/I2S with a number of electronic components/connections/power supplies distorting amplifiers etc. before reaching the transducer - all potentially degrading/altering the output. It is a wonder how good it can actually sound!

But as 2CA says - "A new platform, which is traditional PC free. A different way of doing things." is also my view. For me, that will only successfully achieved with a dedicated audio hardware platform and rendering software dedicated to that platform.

The hardware fortunately is available and cheap if one used FPGA evaluation boards from the likes of Xilix and many other FPGA vendors.

For the OS software side, the best OS is no OS! A dedicated audio device does not need an OS. What is not so easy is the skilled FPGA programming to control and render the output. So not MQn per se but perhaps utilising the innovative thinking/principles built up in Gordon's rendering code for MQn.

Of course a dedicated hardware platform will not be mainstream, but dare I say neither is MQn. But if it took us audiophiles to another level of faithful reproduction at reasonable cost, I reckon we would jump at it.

Probably should stop there, as I am getting way off MQn topic. But it is great to hear that two other MQn enthusiasts are thinking creatively and the same as me!

Jonathan

[tony]

Difficult to follow the last few posts. Honest, accurate, insightful and helpful in framing people's opinions when judging comments on MQn's development. Funny feeling a more technical thread or exploration will come from this.

Where is the project at now? Still going back to 3.14avx myself and haven't tried any of the latest versions. Is Gordon going to produce some hires versions of 3.14avx? And maybe some on what is considered best of the latest batch for comparison.

Personally I seem to have gone a different route lately to many here. Valves everywhere and big box Dac from matchbox.
At a recent meet primarily to compare dacs we found interconnects,isolation and dac type all influenced the final sound.
Reality is as I think most of us realize and accept that all things in the chain often affect the final result(Positively/Negatively/ and often not at all).

From hearing various systems over the last few years to get a bit of magic takes effort,investigation, willingness to trial/test and an open mind.
I went to Scalford with a closed mind to CDp's as transports for a dac and came back scratching my head at the people who used this method. Maciej's Meridian transport into a dac opened my mind to what could be achieved with it.

To cut to the chase give us some hi res versions of 3.14avx!

[jesuscheung]

vinyl isn't all bad.
with headphones, vinyl is mostly unlistenable. partly due to bad rip
with speakers, vinyl is just amazing despite all the flaws it has

old mqn.exe have many flaws just like vinyl. nevertheless, i am still listening to it

software like xa, unless everything is perfect, it is unlistenable.

software like jplay, it's just... i prefer youtube...

in the old days, i used to like hqplayer. but its sound never improved. dry.

hqplayer has all these filters. they don't sound all that different.

mqn makes 1 change in assemble code makes huge impact.