jesuscheung wrote:
....there is almost no explicit information regarding soundstage in a PCM wav file.
only weak signals in sound
What a strange remark????????????????
there no exact coordinates x y z as to where every instrument is located.
soundstage is based on correct music/vibration. when music is correct, soundstage is automatically correct.
didn't you realize, when drum weight changes, flow also changes? this is just one example.
You know a WAV file is just a file with digitised sound as recorded by several microphones and mixed by an engineer?
Soundstage is dependent on the capabilities of your hifi chain to discern small timing differences and signal fluctuations in the recording, to propagate these intact through your chain and recreate those timing differences accurately, as per frequency (range) and for every signal level and in a proper balance between left and right speakers (NOT headphones!!!).
sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.62 sse2/avx, think that's just about it.
anybody excited about the impending jplay announcement ?
News to me
New version?
5.2.1 update!
What's new:
- 4x smaller buffer used for _any_ player – affects _all_ Engines (set DriverBuffer to 2 to get 5.2 default behaviour)
- 2x smaller UltraSize (i.e. can go down to 10 but realistically seems
12-15 is minimum on most setups that could do 20 with 5.2)
- (internal) moved jplay.settings to registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JPLAY)
sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.62 sse2/avx, think that's just about it.
anybody excited about the impending jplay announcement ?
News to me
New version?
5.2.1 update!
What's new:
- 4x smaller buffer used for _any_ player – affects _all_ Engines (set DriverBuffer to 2 to get 5.2 default behaviour)
- 2x smaller UltraSize (i.e. can go down to 10 but realistically seems
12-15 is minimum on most setups that could do 20 with 5.2)
- (internal) moved jplay.settings to registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JPLAY)
just tried it, not as clean as MQn, first time I'd listened to it for a long time, bass seemed lumpy. too many compromises along the way ?
also there was the annoying digital sound overlay, probably due to clock being at 0.5 etc
jesuscheung wrote:
....there is almost no explicit information regarding soundstage in a PCM wav file.
only weak signals in sound
What a strange remark????????????????
Wasn't just me then?
Think flow reverb is the issue now?
What's it sound like there?
Haven't compared much, the release rate is too high for me to keep up with sensible impressions.
Also very busy at work so just listening for relaxation.
Aleg wrote:
Haven't compared much, the release rate is too high for me to keep up with sensible impressions.
Also very busy at work so just listening for relaxation.
Cheers
Aleg
only zoning in on a few of the problem aspects atm
still comparing to old 3.14/3.39
getting better though
oh 448 bye bye!!
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's
sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.
Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69
sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.
Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69
4.71 might help with the bass.
uploaded 4.71 sse2
someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.
sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.
Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69
4.71 might help with the bass.
uploaded 4.71 sse2
someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.
4.71 avx is just perfect on the bass, now also a well controlled deep bass, which is allowed to sing like his mid-bass brothers, instead of being just a blooming boom.
-----------
Vocals have become somewhat too harsh.
So apparently the additional high freqs that benefits the bass is too much when added to the vocals in the midrange.
Aleg wrote:
Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69
4.71 might help with the bass.
uploaded 4.71 sse2
someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.
4.71 avx is just perfect on the bass, now also a well controlled deep bass, which is allowed to sing like his mid-bass brothers, instead of being just a blooming boom.
-----------
Vocals have become somewhat too harsh.
So apparently the additional high freqs that benefits the bass is too much when added to the vocals in the midrange.
Win it on one front, loose it on another :-(
is 4.72 any better ? thought 4.71 was a little bit harsh, but wondered if that was the recording.
I was going to say call it a wrap and then saw the bit under the dotted line.
