Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:...
let's face it, a fresh OS is a big piece of jitter. even in non-gui mode. you are only listening to jitters. treble and bass and mid are all unstable.

I believe you would when listening straight from a computer
But certain DACs do reclocking and certain people use highly stable reclockers, so I believe the effects maybe less prominent when not listening straight from the PC.

Cheers

Aleg

That could be an answer why I can't hear difference for some tweaks I make, or my ears just slowing down...lol. I think you are right on!

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:...
let's face it, a fresh OS is a big piece of jitter. even in non-gui mode. you are only listening to jitters. treble and bass and mid are all unstable.

I believe you would when listening straight from a computer
But certain DACs do reclocking and certain people use highly stable reclockers, so I believe the effects maybe less prominent when not listening straight from the PC.

Cheers

Aleg

don't understand.
are you implying mqn is less prominent with better DAC do reclocking?
why don't you just use foobar haha

cvrle59 wrote:Aleg - I know you appraised 100000 very highly, what really made me to put some effort to change driver and to make it work. Do you still find this version to be #1 choice for 16/44, or there is a new favorite in these R1.0's?

Cvrle59

I am very satisfied with 32-bit R1.0 which is equivalent to 24-bit R1.1 I believe. When comparing it to 100000 I found it equivalent.

I have been doing so much comparing the last days that I was getting (literally) a bit tired of it and it becomes more difficult to obtain the required critical attention. More so because I have been focussing on the aspects I find most important, i.e. microdetails, airyness with realistic level of reverb and soundstage, and texture of the sound which should be realistic and supportive of the level of microdetails.

I have seen JC's critique on the quality of the bass but also a contrary opinion by ??? that quality of bass was just fine only the level of bass had increased a little. Personally I didn't notice anything off with bass.

Since discussion is continuing on the comparison of R1.1 vs 100000, I will listen again to both using non DRC-ed music.
As said I am very happy with the 32-bit R1.0 which allows me to listen to my DRC-ed music with a very good player.

Cheers

Aleg

jesuscheung wrote:

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:...
let's face it, a fresh OS is a big piece of jitter. even in non-gui mode. you are only listening to jitters. treble and bass and mid are all unstable.

I believe you would when listening straight from a computer
But certain DACs do reclocking and certain people use highly stable reclockers, so I believe the effects maybe less prominent when not listening straight from the PC.

Cheers

Aleg

don't understand.
are you implying mqn is less prominent with better DAC do reclocking?
why don't you just use foobar haha

No, I say your listening setup might be more sensitive to jitter because you listen straight from PC and don't have any mittigating devices between your PC and your DDC/DAC.
It is mittigating, not removing.

Cheers

Aleg

aleg. please don't recommend random tweak to people like clockrate=23220 for everything.
since you said you "personally don't notice much difference".

i cannot be bothered to argue with you. you keep misspoken.

Aleg

can you try clockrate of 448 for 100000 and r1.0 512 for 16 bit
changes sq for me
lower values dont seem to help sq and i get difficult to find difference around 300-450

nige2000 wrote:Aleg

can you try clockrate of 448 for 100000 and r1.0 512 for 16 bit
changes sq for me
lower values dont seem to help sq and i get difficult to find difference around 300-450

Now I'm confused (again)!
Didn't we always used the clock rates 23220 or 46440?!
What's 448 now?!

sima66 wrote:

nige2000 wrote:Aleg

can you try clockrate of 448 for 100000 and r1.0 512 for 16 bit
changes sq for me
lower values dont seem to help sq and i get difficult to find difference around 300-450

Now I'm confused (again)!
Didn't we always used the clock rates 23220 or 46440?!
What's 448 now?!

yea its sort of pushing it
try it and see

nige2000 wrote:

sima66 wrote:

nige2000 wrote:Aleg

can you try clockrate of 448 for 100000 and r1.0 512 for 16 bit
changes sq for me
lower values dont seem to help sq and i get difficult to find difference around 300-450

Now I'm confused (again)!
Didn't we always used the clock rates 23220 or 46440?!
What's 448 now?!

yea its sort of pushing it
try it and see

What value exactly do I have to put for the clock rate? Just 448?

yes were you put in 23220 or 46440 etc