Tír Na HiFi

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.

"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.

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.

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.

aleg, see my comment above

my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.

sbgk wrote:aleg, see my comment above

my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.

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.

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.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:aleg, see my comment above

my favourite is 2.93 4 8, the 16's subtract too much for me.

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.

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.

I agree with Aleg on this. My favorite is the 2.92 8 16 (could not find the 2.90 16 16).
Specially I like the lower-middle end. So tight and full.

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

sbgk 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

Gordon

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.

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:

Could you explain what is being done here and what might be going wrong?

Cheers

should have mqnplay1644.exe and mqnplay2496.exe and mqnplay24192.exe in same directory as mqncontrol

control deletes mqnplay.exe and renames the relevant mqnplayxxx.exe

can't get on with these new versions, prefer the old 2.93 4 8