Tír Na HiFi

Thanks for support Tony, but it worked only with playpcmwin, unfortunately. I should've been more accurate, sorry.
The buffer size of 10ms just exceeds for fraction of ms on my Dac. I think that is what screws me up.
I hope SBGK comes with some magic not to leave me in the dust...

The latest 2.72's are nice improvement over the last 2.72 that I was able to play!
They are both "sharper" and with much more air and details then the previous one.

I found the "rel get +" with more body and better bass then the "rel +".

In my opinion the "2.72 rel get +" is the best and more complete version so far.

cvrle59 that's a pity.

Maybe I have been away for a few weeks and am just getting overly enthusiastic coz I have a chance to listen again
but this new version seems really good. Detail but not sharp at all to me. The version favoured by sima66 would be my favourite also.

I hate to "spit and lick", but I have to do it this time............again!

After more listening, there is definitely something wrong with those two versions!
The sound is to "loosed", missing a focus. I'm loosing the separation and the silence between the instruments. It becomes a mess and more obvious with bigger orchestras. Bass is not tight enough, kind of to boomy.

Please take in consideration that this is just my opinion, my system, my taste and my momentary state of mind (who knows what I will think tomorrow)!!

That's the problem when one jumps in all enthusiastically! The second one I would agree as my initial comments about being really airy gave it a surreal sound. The second one as I said maybe just back listening or like yourself the mind or ears where playing tricks but I liked it a lot. Sharp tracks sounded very sweet on it last night. Will go back again tonight.

Think it demonstrates why meet ups are great every now and then just to get unbiased opinion except of course when it comes to ST's when I think there is a conspiracy at work.

I seem to have two favourites with this new 448-2.72 series, depending on the recording.

On recordings where the piano is not too sharp sounding (there is a lot of difference in sound between pianos esp. if close miked) I prefer 2.72 movdqa raw background.

Where the recording of the piano is too sharp sounding with the previous engine, I prefer the 2.72 mem rel get + raw background, which gives a somewhat more mellow sound which can make the sharp sounding piano very pleasurable to listen to indeed.

Is one better or worse than the other? I don't know really, because recordings are not sounding all the same either.

The other release from yesterday 2.72 mem rel + get raw background is then again too much mellowing and sound becomes woozy.

So I'll just have two :-)

Cheers

Aleg

only quickly listened on some piano with:
2.72 movdqa raw background has more vibration than density. not good for piano.
2.72 mem rel get + raw background is better. notes have more air more solid higher density.

both have same musical flow. tune are similar. treble tune a bit shy can be more exciting.

uploaded a 2.73 448 raw background which uses the original render loop,

sounds pretty good. anyone that was waiting for a 1.x or 3.x version should be able to play this (win 8.1/r2 only)

sbgk wrote:uploaded a 2.73 448 raw background which uses the original render loop,

sounds pretty good. anyone that was waiting for a 1.x or 3.x version should be able to play this (win 8.1/r2 only)

This one doesn't work on my system either. I am quite disappointed by now.
Is there anything specific that needs to be done in PC setup?

cvrle59 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded a 2.73 448 raw background which uses the original render loop,

sounds pretty good. anyone that was waiting for a 1.x or 3.x version should be able to play this (win 8.1/r2 only)

This one doesn't work on my system either. I am quite disappointed by now.
Is there anything specific that needs to be done in PC setup?

seems to be the 10ms buffer your dac has problems with, thought you had 20ms working on playpcmwin, so the solution is make a 20ms version, shall do if I get time.

strange because I thought 3 ms was the usual minimum and 10 ms was a good default, maybe worth investigating the latency of your dac.

just read this

http://www.naimaudio.com/sites/default/ ... ration.pdf


and it says change buffer from 10 ms to 100 ms - page 10