2.92 8 16 much better than 2.92 16 16, air and liveliness back again.
2.92 8 16 compared to 2.90 16 16 is somewhat sharper defined with the attack/ rising edges of the notes. 2.90 16 16 is somewhat softer at the edges.
Comparable otherwise.
MQN
Re: MQN
"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"
uploaded 2.93 8 16 and 16 16 which are more comparable with 2.90
2.92 had a setting which I thought was giving more detail, but ends up hooded and compressed.
2.93 is same as 2.90, just less code. 2.93 16 16 sounds a bit better.
Will try 8 16. Was not yet available when I downloaded 2.92 16 16"
uploaded 2.93 8 16 and 16 16 which are more comparable with 2.90
2.92 had a setting which I thought was giving more detail, but ends up hooded and compressed.
2.93 is same as 2.90, just less code. 2.93 16 16 sounds a bit better.
Re: MQN
Aleg wrote:2.92 8 16 much better than 2.92 16 16, air and liveliness back again.
2.92 8 16 compared to 2.90 16 16 is somewhat sharper defined with the attack/ rising edges of the notes. 2.90 16 16 is somewhat softer at the edges.
Comparable otherwise.
well there you have them all, pick a winner
the 2.92 uses a compiler setting which produces fast code, usually sounds harsh and digital, but have been able to use it with these latest versions. 2.93 and 2.90 don't have this setting and sound a bit more natural.
so, I suppose the choice is between 2.92 8 16 and 2.93 8 16 and 2.93 16 16
uploaded 2.93 4 8, 4 16, 8 8 as well
my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.
Last edited by sbgk on Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: MQN
sbgk wrote:Aleg wrote:2.92 8 16 much better than 2.92 16 16, air and liveliness back again.
2.92 8 16 compared to 2.90 16 16 is somewhat sharper defined with the attack/ rising edges of the notes. 2.90 16 16 is somewhat softer at the edges.
Comparable otherwise.
well there you have them all, pick a winner
the 2.92 uses a compiler setting which produces fast code, usually sounds harsh and digital, but have been able to use it with these latest versions. 2.93 and 2.90 don't have this setting and sound a bit more natural.
so, I suppose the choice is between 2.92 8 16 and 2.93 8 16 and 2.93 16 16
For me that would have to be 2.92 8 16 (or still 2.90 16 16)
In Both 2.93 's the accompanying instruments disappear too much into the background in relation to the vocals, thereby loosing the interplay between instruments and lead vocal.
The 2.92 8 16 (or 2.90 16 16) keep that perfectly in balance and exciting.
So no 2.93's for me.
HDPLEX;picoPSU;ASUS Q87M;i7-4770T;PH SR7EHD;Server2012R2;Thesycon 2.24;
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
Re: MQN
I listened to all the 2.93s but for me none of them make it to the 2.92 8 16 or 2.90 16 16.sbgk wrote:aleg, see my comment above
my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.
These last two do show more structure in the sound and apparently that has my personal preference over the sound type of 2.93s
So if the compiler setting of 2.92 is not to your liking, than the 2.90 16 16 without that setting is my second favourite.
HDPLEX;picoPSU;ASUS Q87M;i7-4770T;PH SR7EHD;Server2012R2;Thesycon 2.24;
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
Re: MQN
I agree with Aleg on this. My favorite is the 2.92 8 16 (could not find the 2.90 16 16).Aleg wrote:I listened to all the 2.93s but for me none of them make it to the 2.92 8 16 or 2.90 16 16.sbgk wrote:aleg, see my comment above
my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.
These last two do show more structure in the sound and apparently that has my personal preference over the sound type of 2.93s
So if the compiler setting of 2.92 is not to your liking, than the 2.90 16 16 without that setting is my second favourite.
Specially I like the lower-middle end. So tight and full.
I5 4440+TXCOmobo+JCAT Femto-Intona-JKRegen+HynesPS+TeraDak ATX-820W=JCATusb=DiverterHR=Wadia 931/922(GNSC mod)=PassLabsXA100.5=2xValhalla=Stacked&moded ESL57+JAS SuperTweet+2MJ Acoustics Ref.I
4SteinHarmonizers;RR777;Tellus;StillpointsUltraSS
4SteinHarmonizers;RR777;Tellus;StillpointsUltraSS
Re: MQN
Gordonsbgk wrote:have uploaded a 2.93 zip file with a control and 1644 and 2496 mqnplay file,
just extract them into your normal directory
both are 8 16 versions with the fast setting as per 2.92
With the new files from the 2.93 zip I get a few error messages when mqncontrol is started which I don't recognise and don't know what they refer to.
Could you explain what is being done here and what might be going wrong?MQnControl: final
MQnPlay: final 1644
03-a-1000-shades-of-blue-carmen-gomes-inc_-44_16
Could Not Find C:\mqnload\Data\mqnplay.exe
The operation completed successfully.
The system cannot find the file specified.
File Format 16 bits per sample 44100 samples per second
File load count - 1
X - Exit:
Cheers
HDPLEX;picoPSU;ASUS Q87M;i7-4770T;PH SR7EHD;Server2012R2;Thesycon 2.24;
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.