Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:if you play a musical instrument, you can tell the sound is real or not. the best reference is the real musical instrument.

i notice you use CAD optimizer... be careful...

JC

I've got a 7 foot grand piano standing right behind me, I think I know the sound of it quite well.

But as I said earlier, there are differences between 2-core and 4-core and between SSE2 and SSE3 versions, esp. with the level of micro-details coming through, and this 2-core 1024 could do with a bit more micro-details. But that might come with the 4-core and/or SSE3 versions.

And it is not always nice listening when it sounds as if you've stuck your head between the lid and the strings of the piano. :-)

Cheers

Aleg

hey Aleg, so you are a pianist? i don't feel the depth into the keys like 2.71 v1 or v2 or 2.82. there is a 3D effect it is not the real thing. are you sure you hear the real piano sound as though you are playing it? i listen to 1024 again, i don't feel it. when the fingers drop on the key, it blurs. are you certain? coz i need to buy a real DAC.

jesuscheung wrote: hey Aleg, so you are a pianist? i don't feel the depth into the keys like 2.71 v1 or v2 or 2.82. there is a 3D effect it is not the real thing. are you sure you hear the real piano sound as though you are playing it? i listen to 1024 again, i don't feel it. when the fingers drop on the key, it blurs. are you certain? coz i need to buy a real DAC.

JC

It's not me who is the pianist, that's my wife. But I get to hear quite a lot of it. :-)

I hear and know what you mean. I won't call it unnatural however or 'like from a computer game'.
But it lacks some of what I call micro-details. The micro-details show more of the sharpness/crispness of attack/transient, more discernible micro-movements and vibrations in the sound from the strings etc., creating a somewhat clearer sound-image overall. But listening tot that amount of detail can become fatiguing as well.

But, I repeat myself, that level of detail is what I experience more when using 4-core versions and using SSE3 versions.

This 1024 version is however very pleasant to listen to, tonally correct IMHO, but lacks these micro-details of vibrations and transients other versions do show.

------
Edit:

I just listened to 2.71 1024 (a 2-core control version) vs 2.71 v2 (with a 4-core control version) over my headphones.

It does give a slightly different 'view' on the sound.

2.71 1024 seems to have a slight wobble and cloudiness in the reverb, where 2.71 V2 is more straight in the reverb giving it a greater clarity/transparency.


Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: hey Aleg, so you are a pianist? i don't feel the depth into the keys like 2.71 v1 or v2 or 2.82. there is a 3D effect it is not the real thing. are you sure you hear the real piano sound as though you are playing it? i listen to 1024 again, i don't feel it. when the fingers drop on the key, it blurs. are you certain? coz i need to buy a real DAC.

JC

It's not me who is the pianist, that's my wife. But I get to hear quite a lot of it. :-)

I hear and know what you mean. I won't call it unnatural however or 'like from a computer game'.
But it lacks some of what I call micro-details. The micro-details show more of the sharpness/crispness of attack/transient, more discernible micro-movements and vibrations in the sound from the strings etc., creating a somewhat clearer sound-image overall. But listening tot that amount of detail can become fatiguing as well.

But, I repeat myself, that level of detail is what I experience more when using 4-core versions and using SSE3 versions.

This 1024 version is however very pleasant to listen to, tonally correct IMHO, but lacks these micro-details of vibrations and transients other versions do show.

Cheers

Aleg

i see!

why don't you record your wife playing the piano and play it through MQn? best test ever.

JC
That introduces a lot of different other parameters as well. What mic-preamp to use, the solid state one or the tube one. What to do with the mastering? Add reverb or not and how much?
Just plain recordings sound very flat. What is the quality of my microphones for a test like this? They are not high level professional ones!
Know that recordings are made by people using tools and machines, they don't just come into existence by connecting a microphone to a recorder.


I must say that I find listening and comparing over headphones not easy.
The sound is very direct and i had difficulty finding differences between a lot of the engines I just tried, whereas with listening over my speakers I could more easily pick my preferred ones.

I must admit I don't listen that over over my headphones and certainly prefer my speakers.

Now back to listening to 2.71 V2 which also do like in a way, but can be a bit sharp on the highs. Will switch to win8.1-R2 raw background after that.

I think it is also getting quite confusing with all these versions and picking out a preferred one.

Cheers
Aleg

did more people try ramdisk with MQn? just weird. sounds better. memory->memory->DAC is better than disk->memory->DAC? so weird.

jesuscheung wrote:did more people try ramdisk with MQn? just weird. sounds better. memory->memory->DAC is better than disk->memory->DAC? so weird.

take it this is worth a go

assume any brand software of ramdisk will work the same so i can try on r2

if its good it will be added to my increasingly long list of stuff that doesn't make sense but works good

jesuscheung wrote:did more people try ramdisk with MQn? just weird. sounds better. memory->memory->DAC is better than disk->memory->DAC? so weird.

what about running mqnplay.exe from ram disk

nige2000 wrote:wonder what a 2.71 1024 8.1 r2 raw background would sound like?

have uploaded a raw background version, sounds ok, more natural than the previous raw background. I think win 8.1/R2 needs the category setting. Raw seems to add more clarity. Anyway, plenty of micro detail with this version.

takes the mid and treble of 1024 and gives it more space/separation and dynamics, very nice, bass is improved as well, ridiculous amount of detail from 16/44.1 and still tuneful.

Sligolad wrote:Optimiser or no optimiser my vote would side with the man with the piano in the room....nothing like having the real thing to compare with.
Barring that original master tracks would be good!!

I have to say I have been really struggling with comparisons lately and have even been doubting myself a lot in what differences I am actually hearing.
It would be nice to hear the real thing for comparison every now and then as all this depending on memory is difficult to depend on, speaking for myself that is!

Will be trying 1024 today to see if it floats my boat :-)
Cheers, Pearse.

maybe there's a component in your system that is putting a ceiling on the sound quality.

Supposed to be one of the hardest instruments to reproduce, so more dependant on the system rather than whether he knows what one sounds like.

2.71 1024 has a euphonic tube-like quality. Relaxing.

Re: Ramdisk. Yes, using MQN in the ramdisk also changes the sound quality. Not necessarily better, but audible.