sbgk wrote:John Dot wrote:
Many combinations now but mqn 2.73 448 intel raw background still sounds best to me (amount of micro details).
Your tweaked LMS sounds very, very good and analogue but lacks some details on highs.
or mqn 2.73 448 intel raw background is noisier and you think you are hearing more detail ?
shall see if putting it on it's own core improves things. Have you tried it with mmcss disabled.
Hi Gordon
You have used the 'mistake noise for detail'-argument twice now, so now I feel I have to respond. ;-)
I don't completely agree with your statement about noise vs detail.
What I have noticed is that (some versions of) some players are not showing microdetails esp in bass regions and upper high regions.
E.g. I notice that in cello recordings where deep baas notes are played, some cannot reproduce the vibrations of the wood of the cello. These vibrations are low signal level and each on its own of very short duration. Also in piano playing esp in close miked recordings, you can hear overtones, i.e. higher order harmonics of the note but again of lower signal level, and intermodulations with other nearby strings/frequencies giving life to the tone of a piano.
It is my opinion, that when a player is not functioning optimally, especially with respect to absolute correct timing, these microdetails get lost in the resulting more 'woolly' character of the not exactly timed bass notes. So the bass may be there and may be deep, but if it is not sharply timed or not so well controled it is the low level microdetails that get lost.
One of the pro audio people, forgot his name, once said "jitter equals less detail" and "the more detail you can hear in a signal, the less jitter is present". Now I don't want to misuse the overly applied jitter argument, but I just want to show that the more detail can be heared the better the signal representation is. Some quotes in this context (from
http://www.jitter.de/english/soundfr.html )
"2) "Less jitter" sounds better, much better!
- improved ease of listening
- increased clarity
- improved high frequency response
- better instrument separation
- more information
- better timing
- better soundstage
- improved overall audio performance"
And
"You may identify the frequency of the tone but you are not able to hear whats inside the tone. Then remove the jitter and the same tone becomes extremely defined, clear and airy. You will hear a wealth of details that was covered before."
Now I agree with you that high frequency noise can define a sound more sharply, give it a clearer edge, but that is when it becomes edgy, harsh, 'digital-sounding'.
Also sharp transients in music and microdetails, require high frequencies in a signal and make it sound better defined, with more microdetails and gives it longer decays consisting of low signal levels. But all this requires exceptional timing of a signal (a level I say MQn wasapi had reached in a well optimised system) and also low noise signal processing (as we try to achieve with all hardware, software and operating system based optimisations).
So not all details are just caused by noise IMHO.
Just my thoughts for two cents :-)
Cheers
Aleg