Tír Na HiFi

uploaded 2 more versions of 2.90 with different alignment settings which affect the sound

what I find is that previously I have chosen settings that compensate for some deficiency and then as code is
removed etc the settings need to be adjusted.

think 2.90 has potential

Aleg, I'm just applying things I've discovered, so there's always things that may improve SQ, hopefully nearing the end. Sometimes when you hear something new with a version it's because it's not correct.

No, system warmed up and original 2.90 still sounds vgood

Hi Gordon,

Should we be using the latest "Control 24 bit 10ms 1.6 Window" as the PREFERRED Control for testing the latest R2.89 and the various 2.90 MQN Play Versions?

A Little Humor - My neighbor offered to loan me a few new and/or different CD's so I would not have to listen to the same music over & over & over again!

Thanks,
Steve

s.nickols wrote:Hi Gordon,

Should we be using the latest "Control 24 bit 10ms 1.6 Window" as the PREFERRED Control for testing the latest R2.89 and the various 2.90 MQN Play Versions?

A Little Humor - My neighbor offered to loan me a few new and/or different CD's so I would not have to listen to the same music over & over & over again!

Thanks,
Steve

just uploaded control 1.7 as the 2.90 doesn't need any parameters, won't work with other mqnplay versions though and don't know if it makes a difference.

I have someone who doesn't want to hear hells bells ever again.

No, system warmed up and original 2.90 still sounds vgood

Gordon,

would like to participate in testing, is it too much to ask for 24/44.1 versions or what was called hirez until 2.64.

I'm still on 2.62 for that reason.

Cheers

sbgk wrote:... Sometimes when you hear something new with a version it's because it's not correct.

...

Later I will listen to the same track again with different software player (non-MQN) and see if it is there and not being picked up by 2.90 or whether it is an artifact.

Still prefer 2.89 over 2.90 musically.

3daudio wrote:Gordon,

would like to participate in testing, is it too much to ask for 24/44.1 versions or what was called hirez until 2.64.

I'm still on 2.62 for that reason.

Cheers

I'm just sharing what I use, so not until we have a final version, which hopefully will not be long.

uploaded R2.92, hopefully detail etc fixed, would be happy to stop with this one. Appreciate any feedback.

sbgk wrote:uploaded R2.92, hopefully detail etc fixed, would be happy to stop with this one. Appreciate any feedback.

Prefer mqnplay.exe R2.90 16 16.90 16 16.90 16 16 (so not the 4 and 8 versions) to 2.92.

2.90 16 has better separations of instruments and voices and better building of soundstage.
2.90 4 and 8 are not as good as the 16. 16 is very pleasurable and think details is good as well.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded R2.92, hopefully detail etc fixed, would be happy to stop with this one. Appreciate any feedback.

Prefer mqnplay.exe R2.90 16 16.90 16 16.90 16 16 (so not the 4 and 8 versions) to 2.92.

2.90 16 has better separations of instruments and voices and better building of soundstage.
2.90 4 and 8 are not as good as the 16. 16 is very pleasurable and think details is good as well.

uploaded a 16 16 R2.92 version, sounds tighter

uploaded 8 16 and 4 16

16 16 sounds hooded to me, loss of detail, 8 16 sounds more realistic. 8 16 were the settings we used for mqn back in the day.

stripping out the code exposes how much of the sound is dictated by loops, functions, variables etc, when they are gone we are left with quite a deep bass and great depth of detail. That's something I liked about turntables, their effortless production of bass, think MQn is getting there now.

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded R2.92, hopefully detail etc fixed, would be happy to stop with this one. Appreciate any feedback.

Prefer mqnplay.exe R2.90 16 16.90 16 16.90 16 16 (so not the 4 and 8 versions) to 2.92.

2.90 16 has better separations of instruments and voices and better building of soundstage.
2.90 4 and 8 are not as good as the 16. 16 is very pleasurable and think details is good as well.

uploaded a 16 16 R2.92 version, sounds tighter

uploaded 8 16 and 4 16

16 16 sounds hooded to me, loss of detail, 8 16 sounds more realistic. 8 16 were the settings we used for mqn back in the day.

stripping out the code exposes how much of the sound is dictated by loops, functions, variables etc, when they are gone we are left with quite a deep bass and great depth of detail. That's something I liked about turntables, their effortless production of bass, think MQn is getting there now.

Prefer the 2.90 16 16 to the 2.92 16 16. Has more air around the instruments and a bit more sparkle to the sound, makes it more pleasurable. Electric jazz guitar e.g. stands out better and sounds more live while 2.92 16 16 sounds more covered or hooded as you say.

Will try 8 16. Was not yet available when I downloaded 2.92 16 16