Page 104 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:29 pm
by jesuscheung
nige2000 wrote: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
i think there is a misconception about lower frequency less power makes better SQ. it is about stable frequency+perfect CPU/RAM voltages. people ignore finding correct CPU/RAM voltages.
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:35 pm
by nige2000
Ok tried 1600:1600 mhz
never ceases to amaze me how much these bios settings change the sound
Didnt like 1600mhz at all no contest
still undecided about the 5 5 5 9 and 6 6 6 11 settings will take longer to make my mind up
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:02 pm
by wushuliu
Yes 2.71 is excellent.
Also Gordon, was there anything special about 2.59 AMD? I use AMD and 2.59 really sounds terrific.
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:20 pm
by nige2000
I confess to liking 2.71 raw even though it punishes bad recordings on good its fantastic
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:10 am
by jesuscheung
like 2.71 raw very much. state of the art.
-still not sure 2.71s retires the old xmm and mfence versions. xmm and mfence has stronger tastier (bassiser?) tonality. tune of 2.71s is kind of less tasteful. kind of like a boston piano vs a yamaha piano in tunality. boston has more layers better bass. yamaha is bias towards trebles, lesser in layers.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:20 am
by jesuscheung
prefer 2.71 over 2.71 v2 and raw
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:04 pm
by LowOrbit
nige2000 wrote:I confess to liking 2.71 raw even though it punishes bad recordings on good its fantastic
Me likey very much too.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:40 pm
by tony
LowOrbit wrote:nige2000 wrote:I confess to liking 2.71 raw even though it punishes bad recordings on good its fantastic
Me likey very much too.
Certainly good versions very detailed but 2.66 v2 just has the mushy magic and importantly the detail. I was hoping 24bit had been snook in but it didn't work on 2.71.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:50 pm
by nige2000
tony wrote:
Certainly good versions very detailed but 2.66 v2 just has the mushy magic and importantly the detail. I was hoping 24bit had been snook in but it didn't work on 2.71.
2.71 r2 8.1 raw background looking good atm
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:55 pm
by tony
nige2000 wrote:tony wrote:
Certainly good versions very detailed but 2.66 v2 just has the mushy magic and importantly the detail. I was hoping 24bit had been snook in but it didn't work on 2.71.
2.71 r2 8.1 raw background looking good atm
Is that another one? I have used raw Ok checked it out see there is two more to download!