Tír Na HiFi

tony wrote: I realise John it aint a good think to deplete it and actually use a wallwart to charge it but always plug it out. It will be left on going forward. One thing switch it on or leave it switched off when trickle charging?
And Thanks

Turn DAC off when not listening but if it is a hassle to get to the button then leave it on & probably turn DAC off once a week/month to ensure you fully top up the battery - not essential but good practise

Claus wrote:Had a quick listen there on a Win7 laptop (I know... the shame!). I can perhaps hear a more analog feel from mQN, but I like the sound stage and bas I get from jplay better (running xstream and buffer at 4). I only have very few wav files and I am not going to convert a whole bunch of flacs right now. I can't seem to play hi-res either so I am back to Core and play on the NUC for the time being. Thanks to John for sending me the files! He won!

I haven't gone back to listening to MQN via my Win 8 laptop since I put the NUC together. But when I changed to NUC + Win Server 2012 (not core) I found a big jump in sound compared to laptop.

jkeny wrote:

Claus wrote:Had a quick listen there on a Win7 laptop (I know... the shame!). I can perhaps hear a more analog feel from mQN, but I like the sound stage and bas I get from jplay better (running xstream and buffer at 4). I only have very few wav files and I am not going to convert a whole bunch of flacs right now. I can't seem to play hi-res either so I am back to Core and play on the NUC for the time being. Thanks to John for sending me the files! He won!

I haven't gone back to listening to MQN via my Win 8 laptop since I put the NUC together. But when I changed to NUC + Win Server 2012 (not core) I found a big jump in sound compared to laptop.

probably not fair playing field
comparing core server jplay to win 7 mqn on laptop

nige2000 wrote: probably not fair playing field
comparing core server jplay to win 7 mqn on laptop

When I compared both Jplay standalone & MQN on the Win 8 laptop a good while ago - I preferred MQN
When I compared Jplay standalone & MQN on the NUC recently - I preferred MQN.

On Thursday, in Tony's, I hope we get a chance to compare the two & see how MQN on single PC (server 2012) fares against Jplay streaming on 2 PCs (with core server + Audiphil's script)?

jkeny wrote:

nige2000 wrote: probably not fair playing field
comparing core server jplay to win 7 mqn on laptop

When I compared both Jplay standalone & MQN on the Win 8 laptop a good while ago - I preferred MQN
When I compared Jplay standalone & MQN on the NUC recently - I preferred MQN.

On Thursday, in Tony's, I hope we get a chance to compare the two & see how MQN on single PC (server 2012) fares against Jplay streaming on 2 PCs (with core server + Audiphil's script)?

No doubt mqn is much better than jplay single for me

Sorry if I was a bit vague: I compared on the same Win7 laptop with JPLAY Xtream engine, buffer at 4 first before going back to the NUC.

I will try to install Server 2012 on my SSD and see how it compares. Very impressive little player on standard res files. Looking forward to hearing hi-res as they wont play at the moment. Also did get the odd dropout but I blame that on the crap laptop. ;)

Im going to be brave
and state on my system that im preferring MQn over jplay streaming at the moment.
i know claus stated it doesnt have the same soundstage and bass on jplay,
which makes sense to me as there is more of that on my system too but feels forced or unnatural after listening to mqn but it will take a couple of minutes of listening to realise this

im not going to state this over on the bits are bits thread "but differently configured and powered computers, different operating systems and bios settings make a different sound"

How long would i live on PFM with that statement?

nige2000 wrote: im not going to state this over on the bits are bits thread "but differently configured and powered computers, different operating systems and bios settings make a different sound"

How long would i live on PFM with that statement?

LOL, it would almost be worth finding out!

(My own view is that bits may be bits, but who says that's the end of the story? In any case, having heard the difference between Amarra and Fidelia on one system, I'm convinced there's more to any of this than meets the eye. So basically, while I might play a different game on the Bits is Bits thread, I think what's going on in this thread is very interesting indeed.)

Diapason wrote:

nige2000 wrote: im not going to state this over on the bits are bits thread "but differently configured and powered computers, different operating systems and bios settings make a different sound"

How long would i live on PFM with that statement?

LOL, it would almost be worth finding out!

(My own view is that bits may be bits, but who says that's the end of the story? In any case, having heard the difference between Amarra and Fidelia on one system, I'm convinced there's more to any of this than meets the eye. So basically, while I might play a different game on the Bits is Bits thread, I think what's going on in this thread is very interesting indeed.)

at the risk of oversimplification, my belief is that these wires are carrying more than the bits,

nige2000 wrote: at the risk of oversimplification, my belief is that these wires are carrying more than the bits,

Could be or the timing of arrival of the bits might be of importance to the D/A conversion?
In all USB receivers there is a PLL (phase locked loop) circuit that has to calculate the timing of the USB stream. If this timing changes the PLL has to readjust. If the timing is continuously changing the PLL is continuously active. This activity could have some downstream effects on the analogue stages of the D/A conversion. One possible way is that the PLL generates some ground noise when it is active & this pollutes the ground reference of the clocks or analogue side. I know the counter argument is that the DAC is not therefore competently designed (usually by those who have never gone near to trying to design a DAC) & it's a whole other discussion needed to tease out just what level of immunity needs to be incorporated into a DAC before it is declared "competently designed" & what are the real-world difficulties of achieving this immunity.