Page 269 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:10 pm
by nige2000
Think you were closer at 2.19 or 2.20
Loose clarity with 2.22
Like a 4k monitor but the screen could do with a bit of a wipe
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:15 pm
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:Think you were closer at 2.19 or 2.20
Loose clarity with 2.22
Like a 4k monitor but the screen could do with a bit of a wipe
yup, 2.20 sounds better.
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:23 pm
by nige2000
2.20 > 2.19
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:27 pm
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:2.20 > 2.19
think I'd be happy to call it a day with 2.20, seems to tick all the boxes, detailed, punchy, not digital, good timing.
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:29 pm
by nige2000
sbgk wrote:nige2000 wrote:2.20 > 2.19
think I'd be happy to call it a day with 2.20, seems to tick all the boxes, detailed, punchy, not digital, good timing.
Would a avx 2.20 have nothing to offer?
Think it might
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:33 pm
by sbgk
nige2000 wrote:sbgk wrote:nige2000 wrote:2.20 > 2.19
think I'd be happy to call it a day with 2.20, seems to tick all the boxes, detailed, punchy, not digital, good timing.
Would a avx 2.20 have nothing to offer?
Think it might
yes, it would be better, the method would be the same for avx and sse4, just the avx would use avx versions of the sse4 instructions, shall do an avx version tonight.
with these last few versions you can see how frustrating it is trying to get the data through the cpu so that it sounds good, hopefully a hardware solution wouldn't have these limitations though there's no guarantee that it won't end up sounding bad.
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:13 pm
by nige2000
sbgk wrote:
yes, it would be better, the method would be the same for avx and sse4, just the avx would use avx versions of the sse4 instructions, shall do an avx version tonight.
with these last few versions you can see how frustrating it is trying to get the data through the cpu so that it sounds good, hopefully a hardware solution wouldn't have these limitations though there's no guarantee that it won't end up sounding bad.
avx seems to be lighter on its feet, a little more agile when it needs to be
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:27 pm
by sima66
I tried everyone from R 2.17 to R 2.22.
In my system they all sound the same as the 2.3's.
Only crackling!!!
Looks like I have a problem with "the best" versions?! Probably to good?! ;-)
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:37 pm
by jesuscheung
R2.22 = distortion+crackling
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:05 pm
by Clive
No crackling with my dac/driver.....driver quality seems very hit and miss. Some drivers are simply not expecting low latency it would seem.