Page 12 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:11 pm
by Fran
Yeah thats it Nigel.
Now to look at flac and later hires
Fran
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:19 pm
by jkeny
Fran wrote:Yeah thats it Nigel.
Now to look at flac and later hires
Fran
It's 2.59 is the latest - just in case anyone gets confused.
As Pearse has said, I'm not sure how much better hi-res can be compared to what's being pulled off the 16/44 files currently?
But then there have been a number of times along this path where I & others have said - "I don't know if the sound can get much better"
I'm sure Flac will be working soon if not already!
Nige, I see Tony being another "Troll Warrior" over on PFM :) & Julf, The Grand Inquisitor, keeping all possible misinformation from taking hold.
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:28 pm
by nige2000
jkeny wrote:Fran wrote:Yeah thats it Nigel.
Now to look at flac and later hires
Fran
It's 2.59 is the latest - just in case anyone gets confused.
As Pearse has said, I'm not sure how much better hi-res can be compared to what's being pulled off the 16/44 files currently?
But then there have been a number of times along this path where I & others have said - "I don't know if the sound can get much better"
I'm sure Flac will be working soon if not already!
fixed it
hi res is no better than 16 44 at the minute it might even be worse, think hi res needs work
ill convert a track or two to see what happens
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:28 pm
by Gerry D
The thing about MQN is ...
I have to say that I dig the whole computer audio is "better" thing.
Sounds better. Ya da ya da ya da.
But I have to point out that to me it seems to be all about the sound.
Is it contributing to the experience of enjoying the music?
Is Hi Fi about the sound of music or the sound of noise within the music?
Does the artist want you to hear the song or what the engineer did?
Just saying'
Happy Friday.
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:35 pm
by jkeny
You are correct, Gerry, to pull the focus back to the music.
It may seem, at times that there is more talk about the sound but I think we are all focussing on this purely as the vehicle for better connection with the performance as reproduced.
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:54 pm
by tony
Gerry D wrote:The thing about MQN is ...
I have to say that I dig the whole computer audio is "better" thing.
Sounds better. Ya da ya da ya da.
But I have to point out that to me it seems to be all about the sound.
Is it contributing to the experience of enjoying the music?
Is Hi Fi about the sound of music or the sound of noise within the music?
Does the artist want you to hear the song or what the engineer did?
Just saying'
Happy Friday.
It is a valid point Gerry but it is all about the music. Installing this is not rocket science and it doesn't take more than 5 mins. Once you start playing music hours just slip by. It is just rendering any music thrown at to a very organic level.
The reality is anything to do with computers allows large experimentation and is changing and improving in huge leaps. Go back 20-30yrs and any changes or improvements were measured in decades now it is 6 months that is why so much action is occurring on these threads.
Have you heard any of this?
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 pm
by nige2000
Gerry D wrote:The thing about MQN is ...
I have to say that I dig the whole computer audio is "better" thing.
Sounds better. Ya da ya da ya da.
But I have to point out that to me it seems to be all about the sound.
Is it contributing to the experience of enjoying the music?
Is Hi Fi about the sound of music or the sound of noise within the music?
Does the artist want you to hear the song or what the engineer did?
Just saying'
Happy Friday.
hifi's all engineering is it not?
otherwise its live
Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:37 am
by nige2000
nige2000 wrote:jkeny wrote:Fran wrote:Yeah thats it Nigel.
Now to look at flac and later hires
Fran
It's 2.59 is the latest - just in case anyone gets confused.
As Pearse has said, I'm not sure how much better hi-res can be compared to what's being pulled off the 16/44 files currently?
But then there have been a number of times along this path where I & others have said - "I don't know if the sound can get much better"
I'm sure Flac will be working soon if not already!
fixed it
hi res is no better than 16 44 at the minute it might even be worse, think hi res needs work
ill convert a track or two to see what happens
did my stupid test
did the conversion and sounded thin and lost resolution strangely enough :)
now i dont know how much was lost in the conversion process
pointless exercise
Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:02 pm
by jkeny
I see Tony is having fun on PFM
Maxflinn. Purite giving their usual mantra
But this guy is exactly the sort of programmer that SGBK was talking about
I'm a programmer, and have written audio stuff for 20 years or so.
If that code is really in the player, it's not doing anything clever,and it's written in a completely duff style by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, it's as simple as that.
The 1024 and 4096 are hard coded, and these numbers are basically telling you a sample buffer size (1024 samples) and a hard coded assumption of the sample width (2 bytes) and channels (2).
goto statements? Those went out of fashion in 1975.
There is a mix of variable naming convention - sound_buffer is old C style, although is still trendy in modern boost circles. pData is hungarian notation, and that was popular with BCPL, and microsoft in the 1980s.
WaitForSingleObject basically is a thread locking operator, waiting on a condition to be met. This means it introduces a context switch and a non-deterministic delay before the code wakes up again.
So, assuming people are looking for a carefully crafted tight and efficient audio playback engine, you are looking in the wrong place. If you are wanting to find a bit of code that demonstrates that modern audio drivers, and OSes are so clever that they can produce good results in spite of the quality of the audio software passing them buffers to play, you are looking in the right place.
The arrogance is palpable. He has no clue what MQN is about & judges the code based on what is dated & more concerned with how the code might read to other programmers. The only possible valid issue he raises is the Waitforobject statement & he states his reasons. I'm sure SGBK has an answer but it really is approaching it from exactly the wrong angle i.e how can reading the code determine how it will sound.
The other major objector is Julf who was on another forum & gave this killer blow (he thought) about MQN -
I had hoped you might realize, from what I explained, that the optimized loop in MQN is about 1/1000th of the lines of code involved in processing the audio data. What makes you think that 0.1% is the one that makes a difference?
It's the old argument that effect is equivalent to size. "Is that all you've got" style of attempted put-down
Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:19 pm
by Sligolad
Don't care anymore as these guys are just a waste of space, but I am super glad there are other people who equally do not care and are capable of coming up with something like JPlay and MQN regardless of perceived conventions, they (the debunkers) are like woodpeckers trying to chip away at these DIY developers as soon as they begin to build an enthusiastic and eager band of music fans who are only concerned with how good the music sounds.
The music will drown them out eventually and these woodpeckers will go the way of natural selection when there's no more to chip away at.