Tír Na HiFi

lekt wrote:uploaded:
v2.93 160
v2.93 352

used render loop as v2.40.1 that can lesser touch buffer pointer. changed read file functions, RAM type. think sound more open, not compressed (but i still like sound color of v2.90.17, v2.92.x, more dark, only issue with hard bass)

microsoft is right again, i carefull tested with small buffer size, better than large buffer size, more vibration.
in my case v2.93 160 better, very good bass and femal vocal. soft, lovely.
try 160 with onboard sound card, JC.

tell me what your minimal buffer size of sound card? will release version for you, JC.
my min sizes: 160/256/352/448 for different concept. cheap system, hehe...

i don't mind cheap sound. i hate when sound is incorrect. if piano weight/flow is incorrect, hires is meaningless

yes yes... 352 is good for me hehe...
256/512/1024... the mid is very easily dry.
352 is mellow/watery/stable good good good...

160/320/640 not work for me... treble tune is soured not sweet. don't understand.

thx thx

UPDATE
thought original 2.40.1 vibrates more... but... actually 352 just has less noise/cleaner/more stable

UPDATE2
2.93 352 makes different female vocal! how to say... just more female!
treble is 'round'. not 'sharp'.
352's emotion is expressed naturally. 252/512's emotion is based on 'weight'.
need more vibration/texture hehe... very very(too too) smooth sound here. never heard smoother sound. pure liquid flow.
also very very (too too) sweet.

jesuscheung wrote: ...
tell me what your minimal buffer size of sound card? will release version for you, JC...

could try 176 (352/2)
maybe crackle maybe not

actually, has a incorrect setting in OS.
3.93 isn't too smooth!

report a bug... i browsing internet, use a mouse drag a link, sound -> distorted...
move to next song. normal sound again

now 160 is best size for my sound card, only coding with 160 not benefit as 256, 352 also.
256 is most benefit.

uploaded v2.93.1 352

think better, i like emotion of v.93.x, feel music flow slower, but musicaly notes are correctly, so that give good emotion. music flow have sadness in slow style, very like as vinyl. treble and mid not much but can hear all thing. usually this quantity of CD sound > of vinyl ?

lekt wrote:now 160 is best size for my sound card, only coding with 160 not benefit as 256, 352 also.
256 is most benefit.

uploaded v2.93.1 352

think better, i like emotion of v.93.x, feel music flow slower, but musicaly notes are correctly, so that give good emotion. music flow have sadness in slow style, very like as vinyl. treble and mid not much but can hear all thing. usually this quantity of CD sound > of vinyl ?

2.93.1 is a little sharper! also less bright.

CD treble very very easily bright. real piano notes are not bright. cannot hear correct weight if bright.
in piano, weight+flow = emotion. texture is secondary.

pianists spend 10000+ hours practice weight + finger/arm movements.
good pianists make good sound on any piano.
cheap piano needs more skills!
cheap guitars hurt fingers. also difficult to play... hehe

uploaded v2.93 256

think 256 is most compromise buffer size, not small as minimum size but playable for all sound card. i created new system environment for compiling, more clean.
try test it and enjoy!

lekt wrote:uploaded v2.93 256

think 256 is most compromise buffer size, not small as minimum size but playable for all sound card. i created new system environment for compiling, more clean.
try test it and enjoy!

yes, everyone can play 256!

2.93 256 > original 2.40.1 256. more vibration more air more everything

here 352 has "round" edge. 256 has "sharp" edge.

same result for 2.4.3 352 vs 256 -> round vs sharp.

448 seems better soundstage more 3D, but losses some texture/vibration. 352/160 are better.

prefer 352 for vocal... other music i don't care too much. 256 is fine fine fine

is 160/352/448 possible for 2.90.8, 2.90.9, 2.90.4?

256 has this dryness in vocal...
listen 100 hours is ok.
listen 200 hours, ears get tired.

try these re-compiled versions:

v2.93 352 rc1
v2.93 352 rc1

how you tested 160 buffer size, onboard card?
160 very good for me, coz have only onboard card, hehe...
small buffer size better than large buffer size. think that.

lekt wrote:try these re-compiled versions:

v2.93 352 rc1
v2.93 352 rc1

how you tested 160 buffer size, onboard card?
160 very good for me, coz have only onboard card, hehe...
small buffer size better than large buffer size. think that.

yes... 160 is best for my laptop too. think it is VIA or realtek... (not sure... ms audio driver)

rc1 seems better!

160 is so weird for my STX soundcard.
i can hear everything is goood
but the treble.... is same as plugin a bad mouse in the PC... the treble is squeaky

to my ear, 160 has soundstage of 448 and details of 352.