MQN

[Aleg]

With 8.34 9624 avx we're again back at the old issue of reduced highs in favour of 'exagerated' mids to make it sound nice.

[Aleg]

8.35 is Better than 8.34
Prefer 8.35 over 8.36. 8.36 went a bit too far in the other direction.

[sbgk]

8.35 is Better than 8.34
Prefer 8.35 over 8.36. 8.36 went a bit too far in the other direction.

Anyone have a way of measuring these differences, yet ?

[Ken Moreland]

There's a good article in The Absolute Sound regarding measurement of sound quality where the authors suggest a correlation between SQ and the apparent height of a sound image. They estimate the height a sounds appears above a line between mid range drivers. Perhaps best for something like a stacked choir where a single singer is standing higher up. Not sure how accurate this would be to distinguish MQN versions. It's worth a read but don't come moaning to me if you don't agree. Personally I pay attention to the views of some of the golden-eared on this forum. :)
KM

[lukivision]

At least we all should use the same piece(s) oft music. There are some older pieces from EBU that might serve for us.

Luki

[sima66]

Finally to get a chance to do some listening!

The avx 576 restarts my PC faster than the restart button!
With avx 64 I just got noises!

With all the regular avx2's (from 8.29 - 8.36) I get the "old record" clipping every couple of seconds.
Beside the clipping noises, I prefer the 8.36avx2. In my opinion this is the most detailed and transparent version that I ever heard!
Perfect balanced in my system.

[DJ le Roi]

8.36avx2 gives noise both with my Teac Dac and my M2Tech Dac.

[nige2000]

8.32 64 avx2> 3.36 avx2 by a long shot

[Aleg]

8.37 & 8.38 = system crash

[sbgk]

uploaded 3.40 2496 in various versions, I like the 512 avx2 version, but will crash for some.

read that xxhighend new nos dac has galvanic isolation making it virtually immune to computer/player noise. Hope we see more of that sort of that, though maybe substituting one form of noise for another.