Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:noticed a small optimisation, 3.26 more detail and no harshness - amazing

If everyone is happy with 3.26 I'll make up the other versions

Gordon I don't think perfection is possible. I can see Aleg's point about the bass in this version but it sounds so sweet I think you should use it as a benchmark for the moment and post various hires versions and maybe versions of the unmentionable.
This version has really good detail but will not compete with the best avx version for clarity of detail but huge portions of my stuff sounds horrid on avx versions but 3.26 is I think is what any LP diehard would want. 3.26 you can listen to all day best avx imho is only for best of recordings.

Having only briefly listened to 3.14 avx I will say I prefer 3.25 sse2. I need to try 3.26.

tony wrote:

sbgk wrote:noticed a small optimisation, 3.26 more detail and no harshness - amazing

If everyone is happy with 3.26 I'll make up the other versions

Gordon I don't think perfection is possible. I can see Aleg's point about the bass in this version but it sounds so sweet I think you should use it as a benchmark for the moment and post various hires versions and maybe versions of the unmentionable.
This version has really good detail but will not compete with the best avx version for clarity of detail but huge portions of my stuff sounds horrid on avx versions but 3.26 is I think is what any LP diehard would want. 3.26 you can listen to all day best avx imho is only for best of recordings.

your to be pc mods to be
shall fix the poor recordings :);)
avx all the way!!!!
(avx2???????)

nige2000 wrote:

tony wrote:

sbgk wrote:noticed a small optimisation, 3.26 more detail and no harshness - amazing

If everyone is happy with 3.26 I'll make up the other versions

Gordon I don't think perfection is possible. I can see Aleg's point about the bass in this version but it sounds so sweet I think you should use it as a benchmark for the moment and post various hires versions and maybe versions of the unmentionable.
This version has really good detail but will not compete with the best avx version for clarity of detail but huge portions of my stuff sounds horrid on avx versions but 3.26 is I think is what any LP diehard would want. 3.26 you can listen to all day best avx imho is only for best of recordings.

your to be pc mods to be
shall fix the poor recordings :);)
avx all the way!!!!
(avx2???????)

Your drinking too much milk there boy

have posted 3 versions of 3.26, hopefully the bass is better - which one sounds best ?

tony wrote:

sbgk wrote:noticed a small optimisation, 3.26 more detail and no harshness - amazing

If everyone is happy with 3.26 I'll make up the other versions

Gordon I don't think perfection is possible. I can see Aleg's point about the bass in this version but it sounds so sweet I think you should use it as a benchmark for the moment and post various hires versions and maybe versions of the unmentionable.
This version has really good detail but will not compete with the best avx version for clarity of detail but huge portions of my stuff sounds horrid on avx versions but 3.26 is I think is what any LP diehard would want. 3.26 you can listen to all day best avx imho is only for best of recordings.

Tony

I'm glad you see where avx betters sse.

But you also point out why I say that trying to recreate vinyl reproduction cannot be a target for best sound quality. Vinyl is very limited in its capabilities and not on an equal level of high resolution music recordings. Using music from vinyl masters or analogue tape masters does not offer the best kind of music recordings.

The best sound quality from a software player comes from the best high resolution reproduction and it automatically follows from that best CD Redbook reproduction.

So 'dumbing' down a music player to create nice sound from bad recordings or outdated recording technology cannot be the purpose of this MQn development project ImHO.

High-end hardware hifi gear will also show bad recording as sounding badly, but they are still more true than hifi gear that is not able to show bad recordings as being bad.

I feel that is 'included in the package' when one moves up to more revealing gear, be it software or hardware, bad will be shown as bad.

So I hope we keep the quality target high up there, and start lowering the targets to mask bad recordings or bad hardware.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

tony wrote:

sbgk wrote:noticed a small optimisation, 3.26 more detail and no harshness - amazing

If everyone is happy with 3.26 I'll make up the other versions

Gordon I don't think perfection is possible. I can see Aleg's point about the bass in this version but it sounds so sweet I think you should use it as a benchmark for the moment and post various hires versions and maybe versions of the unmentionable.
This version has really good detail but will not compete with the best avx version for clarity of detail but huge portions of my stuff sounds horrid on avx versions but 3.26 is I think is what any LP diehard would want. 3.26 you can listen to all day best avx imho is only for best of recordings.

Tony

I'm glad you see where avx betters sse.

But you also point out why I say that trying to recreate vinyl reproduction cannot be a target for best sound quality. Vinyl is very limited in its capabilities and not on an equal level of high resolution music recordings. Using music from vinyl masters or analogue tape masters does not offer the best kind of music recordings.

The best sound quality from a software player comes from the best high resolution reproduction and it automatically follows from that best CD Redbook reproduction.

So 'dumming' down a music player to create nice sound from bad recordings or outdated recording technology cannot be the purpose of this MQn development project ImHO.

High-end hifi gear will also show bad recording as sounding badly, but they are still more true than hifi gear that is not able to show bad recordings as being bad.

I feel that is 'included in the package' when one moves up to more revealing gear, be it software or hardware, bad will be shown as bad.

So I hope we keep the quality target high up there.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg, have you heard the naim fpga streamers ? would they not sound better than pc audio ?

sbgk wrote: Aleg, have you heard the naim fpga streamers ? would they not sound better than pc audio ?

Gordon,
They are not fpga, but based on Blackfin DSP and SHARC DSP.
I donot like them because they are upnp based.

I think with my setup it would require an NDS (GBP6800 / €8650 base unit + GBP3500 / €4750 for a mandatory external PSU) to match sound quality I have now.
Some report to achieve a level equal to an NDX with just Mac Mini and Naim DAC using optical TOSLink.
I know my setup to be better now than a Mac Mini + TOSLink.

Cheers

Aleg

Faulting application name: mqncontrol.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x535f5b43
Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 6.3.9600.17031, time stamp: 0x530895af
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x000000000009af2a
Faulting process id: 0x1054
Faulting application start time: 0x01cf683cfe973bd3
Faulting application path: c:\mqnavx\mqncontrol.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
Report Id: 41da7138-d430-11e3-8255-8c89a55c0884
Faulting package full name:
Faulting package-relative application ID:

Now I get this when I'm running avx, does anyone know what to do?

You are right Aleg can't disagree. Probably wishful thinking on my part with regard to these recordings but I do think MQn sse2 renders these recordings acceptable to me while not sounding like a muddy mess. Still great detail but a decent body to the tracks and I like that. A lot of the well recorded stuff puts me to sleep so while useful if suffering from insomnia I need the stuff I like to work on my gear if possible.

Separate note I can't understand how sound engineers and the artists cannot identify over the top sibilance etc in recordings and just do more takes or deal with it before releasing. The Sound levels on a lot of modern recordings also are ridiculous.

Might get testing later