Page 257 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:48 am
by Aleg
internethandle wrote:Thanks for the effort/help Gordon, et. al, but I'm pretty convinced given how my DAC has reacted to various mqnplay/control combinations that there's something incompatible with Gordon's coding efforts and my DAC's C-Media USB receiver chip. R2.0 and the 10ms versions for win7 all resulted in crackling. Not so with onboard Realtek sound. No bother, though, since 2.71 intel v2 still sounds relatively amazing.
C-Media USB-receiver is notorious for compatibility issues. With JPlay too it is the one USB-chip they never managed to get working.
Maybe look out for another more compatible DAC?
Cheers
Aleg
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:02 pm
by jesuscheung
R1.2 sounds like 100000 and better. texture improved. very rich + airy + smooth.
the bass feels funny (dirty?). same feeling i have with 100000. does other people have same issue?
tested on r2.
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:04 pm
by sbgk
internethandle wrote:Thanks for the effort/help Gordon, et. al, but I'm pretty convinced given how my DAC has reacted to various mqnplay/control combinations that there's something incompatible with Gordon's coding efforts and my DAC's C-Media USB receiver chip. R2.0 and the 10ms versions for win7 all resulted in crackling. Not so with onboard Realtek sound. No bother, though, since 2.71 intel v2 still sounds relatively amazing.
think it's because your dac must be expecting larger period size 2.71 would have 23 ms, R2.0 has 10ms.
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:06 pm
by sbgk
jesuscheung wrote:R1.2 sounds like 100000 and better. texture improved. very rich + airy + smooth.
the bass feels funny (dirty?). same feeling i have with 100000. does other people have same issue?
tested on r2.
have a 10ms assembly version which has very tight/fast bass, that's my next release, but may take a few days.
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:32 pm
by tony
1000000000 Well I understand why everybody raves about it. Using R1.1 for hires and that works fine for me. Mellow and nicely detailed will have to go back and compare it to more detailed versions.
Re: MQN
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:54 pm
by nige2000
R1. 2 not as detailed as 100000
Hasn't got the same realness
Re: MQN
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:28 am
by jesuscheung
nige2000 wrote:R1. 2 not as detailed as 100000
Hasn't got the same realness
yes. 100000 more detail little more real.
R1.2 uses sse2. understandable that it typically has less details.
compared to 100000, R1.2 has more stability. also cleaner + richer.
music flow feels the same between the two.
there is some trade-off.
Re: MQN
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:23 am
by nige2000
jesuscheung wrote:nige2000 wrote:R1. 2 not as detailed as 100000
Hasn't got the same realness
yes. 100000 more detail little more real.
R1.2 uses sse2. understandable that it typically has less details.
compared to 100000, R1.2 has more stability. also cleaner + richer.
music flow feels the same between the two.
there is some trade-off.
couldn't really disagree
cleaner yes maybe sort of sanitised though :)
detail and realness is too much to lose for me
100000 not perfect either he he...
always end up listening to 100000 for a while after testing
is the avx masters lost?
Re: MQN
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:17 am
by jesuscheung
nige2000, have you tried 5 5 5 14?
14>9 in resolution. (1-5% more)
9 is more compromising. i just realized it recently. if jitter is low, 14 should be better.
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:19 am
by sbgk
uploaded R1.3 and R2.1, just play 16/44, but probably the best 16/44 you've heard (from MQn anyway). Turn the volume up to 11.