Tír Na HiFi

is the debate over whether you can hear any difference between 16/44 and hirez settled on this forum ?

I'll try and get something out for 24 bit this weekend.

I could paraphrase Ronald Reagan in 1984 -
"...... MQn's best days lie ahead, and you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

Or in answer to your question - "NO"!

2.70 sounds very good

As does 2.71....


Fran

2.71>2.70

detail seems to be back
like a tamed 2.69 8.1-r2
the collar might be the smallest bit tight yet

back to R1. i find it difficult to enjoy MQn on R2. coz it has too many inmature drivers (took me a year to collect perfect driver combination for R1)

anyway. 2.71s are excellent!

may prefer 2.71 over 2.71 v2
2.71>2.7s
2.71>2.69s
2.71>2.68s
....

2.71 needs more musicality. needs a strong bass layer for vocal emotion to kick in.
i find 2.66 v2, mfence and xmm more musical than 2.71. not saying 2.71 doesn't have excellent emotion, it has!

2.71 is amazing. correct and musical. works for a lot of music. i love this version.

2.71 should be the best airy version.

2.71 - Very organic, really good.

2.71 V2 - Only had a quick listen so far in amongst usual Sunday family goings-on. Could be best yet.

nearly thought you were having a laugh with 2.71 v2 and uploaded a placebo

but after awhile i think v2 is cleaner and more immersive than v1
but damn theres not much between them

nige2000 wrote:nearly thought you were having a laugh with 2.71 v2 and uploaded a placebo

but after awhile i think v2 is cleaner and more immersive than v1
but damn theres not much between them

some differences. v1 is more flat. v1 has a little more micro-details.

2.71s sounds like the old versions using intel C++? i remember the old ones lack vibration and micro-details. this two 2.71 are much better than the old ones.

nige2000 maybe coz you using 800MHz 5-5-5 on a 1600MHz 9-9-9 RAM? 5-5-5-9 compresses details in my system. i had used 5-5-5-9 for a long time and given up on it.

nige2000 saw you using 800 for both CPU and RAM. why don't you try 1600 for both CPU and RAM? interested to know the result. am testing best CPU and RAM ratio for SQ. think 2 to 1 is best. not sure. never tried 1 to 1 like you.

jesuscheung wrote:

nige2000 wrote:nearly thought you were having a laugh with 2.71 v2 and uploaded a placebo

but after awhile i think v2 is cleaner and more immersive than v1
but damn theres not much between them

some differences. v1 is more flat. v1 has a little more micro-details.

2.71s sounds like the old versions using intel C++? i remember the old ones lack vibration and micro-details. this two 2.71 are much better than the old ones.

nige2000 maybe coz you using 800MHz 5-5-5 on a 1600MHz 9-9-9 RAM? 5-5-5-9 compresses details in my system. i had used 5-5-5-9 for a long time and given up on it.

nige2000 saw you using 800 for both CPU and RAM. why don't you try 1600 for both CPU and RAM? interested to know the result. am testing best CPU and RAM ratio for SQ. think 2 to 1 is best. not sure. never tried 1 to 1 like you.

Not sure if I prefer 5 5 5 9 or 6 6 6 11 at 800mhz
in certain I prefer cpu at 800 rather than any other frequency
have not tried 1600:1600 cpu:ram frequency
might be worth a try
Lower frequency less power seemed to be productive for me
but im only stumbling in the dark