Tír Na HiFi

2.99avx 2496 sounding superb, best I've heard 2496 . I know I said similar about 2.96 but that was as far back as Sunday.
KM

Listened to all the new ones. All in 1644 only, due to container.

My findings:

298 avx > 2.99 avx tuned

3.02 sse sounds weired, as if tried to give more space by reverb but tones are muffled and kind of twisted. It does not have the natural open sound and space of 2.98 avx

298 avx fast > 2.98 avx non fast, but not by much. 2.98 fast has a tad more freedom to the sound and a bit more length to the tones, which I like, but non-fast is very good as well. Have a bit more issues with starting the non-fast version than the fast version. Don't know if there is a clou to that.

298 fast > 298 non-fast > 512 > 1024 >2.99 > 3.02

I'm curious what's new with the 512 and 1024

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:Listened to all the new ones. All in 1644 only, due to container.

My findings:

298 avx > 2.99 avx tuned

3.02 sse sounds weired, as if tried to give more space by reverb but tones are muffled and kind of twisted. It does not have the natural open sound and space of 2.98 avx

298 avx fast > 2.98 avx non fast, but not by much. 2.98 fast has a tad more freedom to the sound and a bit more length to the tones, which I like, but non-fast is very good as well. Have a bit more issues with starting the non-fast version than the fast version. Don't know if there is a clou to that.

298 fast > 298 non-fast > 512 > 1024 >2.99 > 3.02

I'm curious what's new with the 512 and 1024

Cheers

Aleg

512/1024 just the sample size, 2.99 and above should sound better, but these changes are new so more understanding required.

people seem to be getting excited about dsd now, is pcm worth continuing with ?

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:Listened to all the new ones. All in 1644 only, due to container.

My findings:

298 avx > 2.99 avx tuned

3.02 sse sounds weired, as if tried to give more space by reverb but tones are muffled and kind of twisted. It does not have the natural open sound and space of 2.98 avx

298 avx fast > 2.98 avx non fast, but not by much. 2.98 fast has a tad more freedom to the sound and a bit more length to the tones, which I like, but non-fast is very good as well. Have a bit more issues with starting the non-fast version than the fast version. Don't know if there is a clou to that.

298 fast > 298 non-fast > 512 > 1024 >2.99 > 3.02

I'm curious what's new with the 512 and 1024

Cheers

Aleg

512/1024 just the sample size, 2.99 and above should sound better, but these changes are new so more understanding required.

people seem to be getting excited about dsd now, is pcm worth continuing with ?

I don't see PCM ever disappear.
DSD is only a distribution mechanism. Nearly all music is recorded in PCM and ALL DSD music is edited in some form of PCM.
DSD has entered a new hype cycle and one needs at least DSD 5.6 MHz to have any real benefit over Redbook CD, due to high levels of higher frequency noise that need to be filtered out with low pass filters.

You will never see any significant amount of music in DSD format that would rival the amount in PCM and certainly none that isn't also available in PCM.

Hype.

Cheers

Aleg

I'm listening to 2.99avx 2496 using the mqncontrol that came in the 2.96zip file. The sound is excellent , but I notice that it cannot play a large size album e.g. something over 2Gb. It will appear to load all but no play. on a smaller album say 1.6Gb play no problem or if I select half the tracks from a larger album it will play fine. Did I miss a corrected MQNcontrol version?

No hurry on DSD yet anyway, plenty of SACD rips but sound quality is variable if played through Foobar .

KM

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:Listened to all the new ones. All in 1644 only, due to container.

My findings:

298 avx > 2.99 avx tuned

3.02 sse sounds weired, as if tried to give more space by reverb but tones are muffled and kind of twisted. It does not have the natural open sound and space of 2.98 avx

298 avx fast > 2.98 avx non fast, but not by much. 2.98 fast has a tad more freedom to the sound and a bit more length to the tones, which I like, but non-fast is very good as well. Have a bit more issues with starting the non-fast version than the fast version. Don't know if there is a clou to that.

298 fast > 298 non-fast > 512 > 1024 >2.99 > 3.02

I'm curious what's new with the 512 and 1024

Cheers

Aleg

512/1024 just the sample size, 2.99 and above should sound better, but these changes are new so more understanding required.

people seem to be getting excited about dsd now, is pcm worth continuing with ?

I don't see PCM ever disappear.
DSD is only a distribution mechanism. Nearly all music is recorded in PCM and ALL DSD music is edited in some form of PCM.
DSD has entered a new hype cycle and one needs at least DSD 5.6 MHz to have any real benefit over Redbook CD, due to high levels of higher frequency noise that need to be filtered out with low pass filters.

You will never see any significant amount of music in DSD format that would rival the amount in PCM and certainly none that isn't also available in PCM.

Hype.

Cheers

Aleg

Agree (again) with Aleg. Let's make MQn PCM sound better than anything else in DSD! ;-)
I personally prefer PCM.

Ken Moreland wrote:I'm listening to 2.99avx 2496 using the mqncontrol that came in the 2.96zip file. The sound is excellent , but I notice that it cannot play a large size album e.g. something over 2Gb. It will appear to load all but no play. on a smaller album say 1.6Gb play no problem or if I select half the tracks from a larger album it will play fine. Did I miss a corrected MQNcontrol version?

No hurry on DSD yet anyway, plenty of SACD rips but sound quality is variable if played through Foobar .

KM

trying it with fixed 2gb, so a bit limited

what sizes would be good for 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 ?

eg 2gb for 16/44, 4gb for 24/96 and 6gb for 24/192

3 to 4Gb for 24/88 and 24/96 and maybe 5Gb is enough for 24/176 and 24/192 , Just from a rough check. Alternatively 5Gb should cover all. Hope you like the way I introduced the other sample sizes. The SQ is so good on 24/96 I'm looking forward to the rest.
KM

Ken Moreland wrote:3 to 4Gb for 24/88 and 24/96 and maybe 5Gb is enough for 24/176 and 24/192 , Just from a rough check. Alternatively 5Gb should cover all. Hope you like the way I introduced the other sample sizes. The SQ is so good on 24/96 I'm looking forward to the rest.
KM

cunning like a fox

A bit of listening tonight and what I am finding is sharp recordings are bloody ear piercing on the new versions while the well recorded stuff sounds magical. It would seem the 2.99's are really transparent.