Is this the worst sounding?sbgk wrote: the playerextreme.exe in the test folder could be used, just rename it to mqncontrol.exe. It uses the original memcpy, no optimisations, no memory play - reads straight from the hdd, presumably is bit perfect.
My take on this is that there are only two variables in the reproduction of sound. Amplitude and time. Frequency derives from the modulation of amplitude over time (although it is obviously not a simple relationship in a complex sound such as music, which is why we use 44100 samples a second to get a decent quality reproduction of a complex sound wave).sbgk wrote:
One of of differences that MQn produces is in stereo presentation it can be wide, narrow, compressed, tall or 3d. Is there no measurement that can be used to measure the effect on stereo presentation ? The same on pitch, some versions have an enhanced treble, some the bass is enhanced, can a tone be played and then checked to see if it has changed pitch ? Don't know if that is the correct attribute, but am looking at a way to measure the audible differences.
sbgk wrote:I think you could measure this in room, using either one or two fixed position microphone(s) and software such as smaartOne of of differences that MQn produces is in stereo presentation it can be wide, narrow, compressed, tall or 3d. Is there no measurement that can be used to measure the effect on stereo presentation ? The same on pitch, some versions have an enhanced treble, some the bass is enhanced, can a tone be played and then checked to see if it has changed pitch ? Don't know if that is the correct attribute, but am looking at a way to measure the audible differences.
That's the problem - these effects are due to perceptions so the psychoacoustics of this need to be known in order to begin to direct the measurement.sbgk wrote: One of of differences that MQn produces is in stereo presentation it can be wide, narrow, compressed, tall or 3d. Is there no measurement that can be used to measure the effect on stereo presentation ? The same on pitch, some versions have an enhanced treble, some the bass is enhanced, can a tone be played and then checked to see if it has changed pitch ? Don't know if that is the correct attribute, but am looking at a way to measure the audible differences.
my turnsbgk wrote:By the time MQn is finished CDs will no longer exist. What is missing from existing rippers that you want another one ?erin wrote:sbgk, idea: after you have finished MQn you could try writing some code for ripping CD's as a background service.....
This would be very difficult to do in a domestic environment due to the generally unknown mix of direct/reflected sound at different frequencies. You'd probably need to do this in an anechoic environment to make a meaningful measurement.jkeny wrote:That's the problem - these effects are due to perceptions so the psychoacoustics of this need to be known in order to begin to direct the measurement.sbgk wrote: One of of differences that MQn produces is in stereo presentation it can be wide, narrow, compressed, tall or 3d. Is there no measurement that can be used to measure the effect on stereo presentation ? The same on pitch, some versions have an enhanced treble, some the bass is enhanced, can a tone be played and then checked to see if it has changed pitch ? Don't know if that is the correct attribute, but am looking at a way to measure the audible differences.
Sound stage size, instrument timbre are all related to timings within the music. I forget the actual figures on this but timbre is mostly determined by the first ? mS of the audio envelope. Sound stage is determined by the timing & level of the signals reaching each ear.
Before MQN arrived, we all experienced better reproduction when hardware tweaks such as linear supplies/batteries were used. The same sort of improvements that MQN continued to enhance - better body to the sound, better more stable sound stage, etc.
Could be noise reduction or could be timing issues/stability - could be both
I disagree, using a fixed position microphone it will capture any differences if they are there to be measured. Im talking about taking measurements off axis. This might explain the wider or narrower sound stage that we experienceLowOrbit wrote:This would be very difficult to do in a domestic environment due to the generally unknown mix of direct/reflected sound at different frequencies. You'd probably need to do this in an anechoic environment to make a meaningful measurement.jkeny wrote:That's the problem - these effects are due to perceptions so the psychoacoustics of this need to be known in order to begin to direct the measurement.sbgk wrote: One of of differences that MQn produces is in stereo presentation it can be wide, narrow, compressed, tall or 3d. Is there no measurement that can be used to measure the effect on stereo presentation ? The same on pitch, some versions have an enhanced treble, some the bass is enhanced, can a tone be played and then checked to see if it has changed pitch ? Don't know if that is the correct attribute, but am looking at a way to measure the audible differences.
Sound stage size, instrument timbre are all related to timings within the music. I forget the actual figures on this but timbre is mostly determined by the first ? mS of the audio envelope. Sound stage is determined by the timing & level of the signals reaching each ear.
Before MQN arrived, we all experienced better reproduction when hardware tweaks such as linear supplies/batteries were used. The same sort of improvements that MQN continued to enhance - better body to the sound, better more stable sound stage, etc.
Could be noise reduction or could be timing issues/stability - could be both
Both are important and interesting but the analog domain stuff is easier to measure.jkeny wrote:Absolutely agree, Erin, the measurements have to be taken at the analogue out of the DAC, at least initially to prove the case. At a later stage further & deeper measurements of the digital signal going into the DAC would be of interest but not just bits measurements but actually electrical signal measurements.
You could be right about that. Testing both ways should deliver similar results. If not, we would have to look at why not...jkeny wrote: Question 1: Why record analogue to tape? Why not directly into a good digital recorder? This has to be sufficiently accurate for the proposed level of measurement required.
That is a good question :) I guess someone just has to do a few tests and see what they come up with.jkeny wrote: Question 2: What level of null is acceptable or is it just that we want to compare the MQN null value to other player null value? What value null is achieved by playing the same track through the same player twice & nulling the inverted against the original ? Remember there is never a perfect null. The nulls for MQN have to be consistently & significantly different to other players but what does significant mean? If we are talking about noise being reduced & subtle audio cues being now heard - what level does this imply -70dB, -80dB, -90dB, what do you reckon?
Fair call, it is a bit OTjkeny wrote: Maybe we should branch off this discussion to another thread about measurements of MQN?
The easiest way would be to add a test tone to the start and end of whatever file you used for the testing. That way you could ensure sample level alignment when lining up the files for null comparison. It's probably easier with a simple tone than identifying the absolute start of a track otherwise.erin wrote:Both are important and interesting but the analog domain stuff is easier to measure.jkeny wrote:Absolutely agree, Erin, the measurements have to be taken at the analogue out of the DAC, at least initially to prove the case. At a later stage further & deeper measurements of the digital signal going into the DAC would be of interest but not just bits measurements but actually electrical signal measurements.
You could be right about that. Testing both ways should deliver similar results. If not, we would have to look at why not...jkeny wrote: Question 1: Why record analogue to tape? Why not directly into a good digital recorder? This has to be sufficiently accurate for the proposed level of measurement required.
That is a good question :) I guess someone just has to do a few tests and see what they come up with.jkeny wrote: Question 2: What level of null is acceptable or is it just that we want to compare the MQN null value to other player null value? What value null is achieved by playing the same track through the same player twice & nulling the inverted against the original ? Remember there is never a perfect null. The nulls for MQN have to be consistently & significantly different to other players but what does significant mean? If we are talking about noise being reduced & subtle audio cues being now heard - what level does this imply -70dB, -80dB, -90dB, what do you reckon?Fair call, it is a bit OTjkeny wrote: Maybe we should branch off this discussion to another thread about measurements of MQN?
Probably the earlier suggestion to take the output directly from the analogue stage of the DAC is better. Otherwise you are measuring the interaction with the room which is complex.erin wrote:
I disagree, using a fixed position microphone it will capture any differences if they are there to be measured. Im talking about taking measurements off axis. This might explain the wider or narrower sound stage that we experience