Tír Na HiFi

John Dot wrote:SBGK after the CA mess I hope you'll stay here on TNH.

2.59 sse4 intel 8 4 16 16 4 looks like my new favorite.

Hi John, haven't heard it yet, shall try and do so tonight.

there are 3 further things to try and get working for SQ

large page memory
render loop in assembly
256 bit avx playback (requires haswell)

think the SQ will take a major leap forward

sbgk wrote:

tony wrote:Nice idea will give that a go. My version was to have my favourites on the desktop to do AB testing(not blind mind I could trip over some cables and do myself and injury)

For some reason any name I put on the folder in desktop still allows me play tracks.

can you post the fist 10 lines of your mqn.bat file ?

did you change the bat file recently?

sbgk wrote:have uploaded 2.59 sse4 intel 8 4 16 16 4 to compare with 8 4 16 16 8, haven't listened to it yet.

Liked 8 4 16 16 8 best listening to 24, 88 track Elvis Costello - Im in the mood again.
8 4 16 16 4 sounded like it was trying to hard to sound good.

Sligolad wrote:

sbgk wrote:have uploaded 2.59 sse4 intel 8 4 16 16 4 to compare with 8 4 16 16 8, haven't listened to it yet.

Liked 8 4 16 16 8 best listening to 24, 88 track Elvis Costello - Im in the mood again.
8 4 16 16 4 sounded like it was trying to hard to sound good.

My hearing is a bit funny tonight, but thought I liked what I heard with 8 4 16 16 4, never heard the bass and piano in my Oscar Peterson test track so well expressed and the bass was still there, but with added detail over 8 4 16 16 8, found the 8 version a bit hooded, with 4 it is a more open sound. Also, at low volumes the bass was dominant whereas normally the treble is more dominant at low volumes and then the bass extends as the volume goes up. the 4 version had a better balance at low volumes. Shall see how it fares over the next few days, hopefully my hearing will return to normal.

That was for 16/44.1, might be different for 24/88

sbgk wrote: My hearing is a bit funny tonight, but thought I liked what I heard with 8 4 16 16 4, never heard the bass and piano in my Oscar Peterson test track so well expressed and the bass was still there, but with added detail over 8 4 16 16 8, found the 8 version a bit hooded, with 4 it is a more open sound. Also, at low volumes the bass was dominant whereas normally the treble is more dominant at low volumes and then the bass extends as the volume goes up. the 4 version had a better balance at low volumes. Shall see how it fares over the next few days, hopefully my hearing will return to normal.

That was for 16/44.1, might be different for 24/88

What Oscar Peterson track are you using, SBGK? Some here might have the same track & it would make comparing notes somewhat easier.

jkeny wrote:

sbgk wrote: My hearing is a bit funny tonight, but thought I liked what I heard with 8 4 16 16 4, never heard the bass and piano in my Oscar Peterson test track so well expressed and the bass was still there, but with added detail over 8 4 16 16 8, found the 8 version a bit hooded, with 4 it is a more open sound. Also, at low volumes the bass was dominant whereas normally the treble is more dominant at low volumes and then the bass extends as the volume goes up. the 4 version had a better balance at low volumes. Shall see how it fares over the next few days, hopefully my hearing will return to normal.

That was for 16/44.1, might be different for 24/88

What Oscar Peterson track are you using, SBGK? Some here might have the same track & it would make comparing notes somewhat easier.

track 6 you look good to me - the Oscar Peterson Trio

sbgk wrote:track 6 you look good to me - the Oscar Peterson Trio

Yep, lots of inmates here have that track from the Album "We Get Requests"
This might be a useful comparison track for people to compare what they hear in the various versions of MQN?

sbgk wrote:recommend this when you are auditioning MQn

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

Pearse I hope you have one of them on order for the next listening session? SBGK that requires a leap of faith and is outside of my current disposal income allocated to Hifi. Probably best to start another thread on that. I know accoustic panels have worked for me and were purchased secondhand untested but that type of product I would want to be trialling before I could ever consider it.

[/quote]

track 6 you look good to me - the Oscar Peterson Trio[/quote]

Maybe foolish or is it great minds think a like. Favourite track for testing for the blind and deaf followers of MQn.
And what a wonderful track it is. All the tracks on that album are fantastic. One if not my favourite jazz(lite) albums

jkeny wrote:

sbgk wrote:track 6 you look good to me - the Oscar Peterson Trio

Yep, lots of inmates here have that track from the Album "We Get Requests"
This might be a useful comparison track for people to compare what they hear in the various versions of MQN?

that's gas, it is an standard test track around these parts as it has everything, micro detail, metallic triangle, natural bowed and plucked bass, well recorded piano (a rarity) and it's a damn fine piece of music. Nice one!