MQN

[John Dot]

Does anybody else (beside Tony and myself) have this problem often with the Main Page:

"Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time.

Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator".

Use Google Drive desktop app. It makes copy of MQn folder on my HDD with all updates (realtime).

[Aleg]

Does anybody else (beside Tony and myself) have this problem often with the Main Page:

"Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time.

Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator".

Use Google Drive desktop app. It makes copy of MQn folder on my HDD with all updates (realtime).

So you're the one doing all the downloading, LOL :-:

[John Dot]

Does anybody else (beside Tony and myself) have this problem often with the Main Page:

"Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time.

Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator".

Use Google Drive desktop app. It makes copy of MQn folder on my HDD with all updates (realtime).

So you're the one doing all the downloading, LOL :-:

It only updates new files. I run it once per 2-3 days.

[satshanti]

I've been a bit hesitant to post my recent findings, as I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but I felt it may be worth a single post and then leave it at that.

When the releases at the introduction of KS were still mostly 1644, I found them better than Wasapi from the start. But 1644 has always been just a test bed for me. For enjoyment I only listen to 2496, some originals, but mostly files converted from 1644. I do this because my speaker setup is fed by a digital amp that converts everything to 2496 anyway, so I might as well feed it that, and on my headphone setup I only play files converted to binaural, which are just more accurate when I convert to 2496, rather than 1644 dither. So as the recent releases have mostly been in 2496, I switched testing to those and ignored the 1644 releases.

I kept up with the developments of the past few weeks and yes, it has been progressivly getting better and better, but even the last one I tested, which was 7.95, was still not better than my very old 2496 reference 3.39 avx. Now, since I did prefer KS over Wasapi with the initial 1644 developments, I wonder what causes this discrepancy. Does it have something to do with the fact that timings are just different with 2496 over 1644?

Or could it be something else? I was thinking, Gordon, that with Wasapi at the end you were sometimes releasing 4 iterations of the same milestone version: avx2, sse2, avx and avx amd. For me on my AMD CPU system, avx2 and sse2 were always quite a bit worse sounding, avx2 being too edgy and sse2 being too dull. For a long time I really needed the regular avx versions to make my setup sing, and when you introduced a few avx amd versions at some point, those were like the icing on the cake, and provided a real challenge to the 3.39 avx reference.

I was wondering if those avx and avx amd iterations could also be applied to the KS releases? Or am I talking nonsense here?
It would be really worth the experiment, if it's at all possible to create those, possibly for all others with Intel CPU's below Haswell too. Despite the fact that avx2 can be played somehow, my ears tell me it's somehow not doing things right, and the dedicated avx and avx amd releases in the past made a world of difference.

Thank you again for all you've done so far and are still doing day in day out. :-)

[nige2000]

the 24 96 v7.98 is ok the 7.98 16 44 is still well behind wasapi
its still noise, resolution and timing i find as issues

[jesuscheung]

7.98 has no sound here

[sbgk]

the 24 96 v7.98 is ok the 7.98 16 44 is still well behind wasapi
its still noise, resolution and timing i find as issues

I'm getting more detail than wasapi, maybe we're looking for different things

not sure about the absolute sq of 7.98, but it sounds more detailed in places, piano yet to be convinced.

[Ken Moreland]

Just listened to 7.98 2496 avx2 and preferred it to 7.95. A significant improvement I think with great life in the music. Ellington's Blues in Orbit better than ever.
KM

[m.massimo]

About normal 1644 versions on my system:

7.98 < 7.86 >> 7.68 > 7.49, all with 3.64 control

Just listened for curiosity 1644 6.17+3.61 512 compared to 1644 7.86+3.64. I prefer ks, no doubt.

Listened to Charlie Mariano - Deep in a dream (Enja)

[rickmcinnis]

satshanti,

One wonders if your experience with mqn-ks could be due to the AMD chip?

As crazy as everything can be in audio; the fact that sbgk is using an Intel powered machine could, to my wacky way of thinking, make a difference in what you are hearing versus what he is hearing.