Tír Na HiFi

lekt wrote: i think can use !.exe.
but using !.wav may reduce SQ coz need copy/replace file !.wav, more task with I/O device (HDD, SSD) nod good for sound. and this task can make file fragmented. not sure.

hmm...
try image backup. i restore OS every week (takes only 7-8mins. or 20mins for 1 harddisk ). stay young and pretty.

jesuscheung wrote:sop c4 is superb so far cannot find music it cannot play hehe

yes, perfect softness, micro micro vibration. i feel sound have skin, or its edges present body's skin. sop c4 have fine skin, correct smoothness.
don't understand why this imbalance (a bit) version can make such sound. prefer it.

lekt wrote:in my case v2.98.12 256 sop c4 have good bass depth, better than sop. sound have more easy movement, vibration refined. unfortunatelly its balance not good. though vocal very sweet, energy. mellow but vocal peak is good. tested with normally file name lekt.exe

here sop c4 is tight and sharp. ctlx is more soft.

----
sop c4 is most technical sounding. best for classical music.

does sop* has enough power? feels rather polite for rock/metal

for vocal, i actually prefer ctlx. tape sounding. can listen all day long.

ctlx fast notes not as good as sop or 2.99 or 2.90x. but its music presentation is like radio- good for vocal.

ctlx has enough agility to handle classical music. most radio usually cannot do it.

unfortunatelly, little imbalance. stereo effect can not go to maximum. of course power haven't peak with imbalance. sound very detailed, musical notes, stage size, weight correct. feel good emotion.

don't forget 2.98.1 256 a32 (or brother 2.98)... its piano is gooood. has technicality + musicality.

2.98.1 max weight > sop

lekt wrote:i think can use !.exe.
but using !.wav may reduce SQ coz need copy/replace file !.wav, more task with I/O device (HDD, SSD) nod good for sound. and this task can make file fragmented. not sure.

Is not move (from same drive) any good? i.e:

move 01.wav \!.wav
play it
then move it back

I assumed that just changes the directory listing rather than copying file?

goon-heaven wrote:

lekt wrote:i think can use !.exe.
but using !.wav may reduce SQ coz need copy/replace file !.wav, more task with I/O device (HDD, SSD) nod good for sound. and this task can make file fragmented. not sure.

Is not move (from same drive) any good? i.e:

move 01.wav \!.wav
play it
then move it back

I assumed that just changes the directory listing rather than copying file?

move file could work.

rename file can cause NTFS tunneling. not sure that is good for SQ either.

so far, it sounds better that it used to... might get worse over time... when that happens, just format the drive.

starting to notice sop c4 can reproduce very well the sound of piano hammer:



this material is one reason why piano sounds mellow has a layer of warmth.

don't think ctlx can reproduce it.
a32 can do it ok- not enough to be amazing.

when this layer is reproduced, piano can be very VERY loud and NOT bright at all.


------
(tried a new thing. not enforcing OS from checking for BSOD. bass quantity increases. for SOP C4, the weight peak increases a little bit. maybe SOP C4 already is near perfect. OS is bottleneck.)

jesuscheung wrote:

goon-heaven wrote:

lekt wrote:i think can use !.exe.
but using !.wav may reduce SQ coz need copy/replace file !.wav, more task with I/O device (HDD, SSD) nod good for sound. and this task can make file fragmented. not sure.

Is not move (from same drive) any good? i.e:

move 01.wav \!.wav
play it
then move it back

I assumed that just changes the directory listing rather than copying file?

move file could work.

rename file can cause NTFS tunneling. not sure that is good for SQ either.

so far, it sounds better that it used to... might get worse over time... when that happens, just format the drive.

..so what drive partition format would give most direct access to the only 2 files on it?