Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote: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.

It (R2.1) comes closer and does benefit from a clockrate setting of 448.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote: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.

It (R2.1) comes closer and does benefit from a clockrate setting of 448.

I don't understand clock rate 448, what is the theory behind that ? Just seems to be setting it to the no of samples.

would have thought that a minimum requirement would be that it was a multiple of 10185.7, the default is 10000

Anyway, I've never heard anything like R1.3, i think it is the most detailed version of MQn ever.

from personal experience and from reading people's comments, i am pretty sure clockrate is more important to syn with DAC than with software player.

many DAC love 448=10ms clockrate.
my DAC loves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5ms... exact ms clockrate.
best rounded exact number is 352 = 7.98ms = 8ms. 352 just happens to be supported by WASAPI.

better DAC can handle 0.5, 1, 1.5ms... (mind cannot)

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote: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.

It (R2.1) comes closer and does benefit from a clockrate setting of 448.

I don't understand clock rate 448, what is the theory behind that ? Just seems to be setting it to the no of samples.

would have thought that a minimum requirement would be that it was a multiple of 10185.7, the default is 10000

Anyway, I've never heard anything like R1.3, i think it is the most detailed version of MQn ever.

Gordon
I don't know what the theory is, but I also don't need one.
I just listen and have a preference.

Maybe it is as JC says more dependent on the DDC/DAC buffer size?
My DDC-driver has got a buffersize of 2ms (and other values all in discrete values in ms amd not in samples) and maybe that's better aligned with the 10ms clockrate?
I don't know really.

Therefore maybe some configurable parameters could allow each to find his optimal settings.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg
Would the clockrate effect the order of your preference in mqn versions

Haven't tried the latest versions loaded by Gordon yet. Which MQn control.exe should I use for both these? Same as 100000?

I am very happy with the 100000 and R1.1 for Hires. Best sound I have got. Have changed clockrate in proaudio as per previous advice to 448. Is this having a big effect also? I was advised the house was rocking last night by my boss on the floor above who was trying to watch 'something important' on the TV.

Are some of the MQn versions changing/setting clock rate or can this only be done manually in proaudio?

Have a long term goal to try and get a Nos dac but the detail and depth of soundstage with these versions of MQn with the Ciúnas makes me question the need. Look forward to the spring/summer and hopefully a few more sessions with the wadia/meitner etc to see if the gap has closed again or surpassed.

ok

difficult for me to test sse2 r1.3 as i get crackling/distortion for 3-15 sec at start
sort of throws me of the scent so to speak

the r2.1 is good but lacks the detail air and space of 100000

if i were to guess id say 1.3 is a shade better than 2.1 but the crackling at start makes it a non runner

nige2000 wrote:Aleg
Would the clockrate effect the order of your preference in mqn versions

No, wouldn't think so. The effect isn't that big IMO.
In 100000 it just pushes it a bit further ahead, in the R2.1 it just pushes it a bit closer. But R2.1 + 448 still doesn't make it a 100000 (even without 448). It just doesn't have that extra bit of space and air and doesn't have that extra glow on tonality.
Give me a 32-bit version of 100000 and I'll be quiet for a long time :-)

Cheers

Aleg

nige2000 wrote:ok

difficult for me to test sse2 r1.3 as i get crackling/distortion for 3-15 sec at start
sort of throws me of the scent so to speak

the r2.1 is good but lacks the detail air and space of 100000

if i were to guess id say 1.3 is a shade better than 2.1 but the crackling at start makes it a non runner

is that the avx2 100000 version ?

avx seems to have stopped working on my laptop.

Aleg wrote: It just doesn't have that extra bit of space and air and doesn't have that extra glow on tonality.
Give me a 32-bit version of 100000 and I'll be quiet for a long time :-)

Cheers

Aleg

Just in case Gordon missed that! +1. Hires on 100000 is a must.