Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:
3.60 avx 128 1024 is overly bass heavy.
Bass overpowers all other tonal ranges.
No balance.
Cannot even begin to compare to other avx versions because other tonal ranges are not clearly distinguishable to be able to compare to other avx versions.

Cheers

Aleg

yes 3.60 avx isn't good.
struggles with fast drum

satshanti wrote:So the current new favourite is 3.57 avx with control 1024.

thanks for the donation

don't think 1024 works with 3.57, 1024 plays with 1024 etc

I thought 3.60 was sounding thin, just goes to show.

jesuscheung wrote:

i like music slow too.

Not slow, in the correct time duration.

Every natural tone has its time duration, it begins and ends.

If it is too fast, your sense of hearing want to controll it and begin to work.

After a while you get tired.

sbgk wrote:

satshanti wrote:So the current new favourite is 3.57 avx with control 1024.

thanks for the donation

don't think 1024 works with 3.57, 1024 plays with 1024 etc

I can confirm that mqnplay.exe 3.27 avx (Probably my current favourite) does play with mqncontrol.exe 1024. Did not try it on 3.57 avx.

Cheers

Aleg

jesuscheung wrote:

2channelaudio wrote: My experience is more often than not MQN favours a slightly forward & bright presentation.
....

Personally I like 3.34sse2, its noticeably richer than 3.56sse2..
I also like 2.59... not sure which version I have..

To me it seems that some of the main contributors to feedback on this thread prefer a slightly forward and thinner sound... ...

jesuscheung wrote: yes. 3.34sse2 has better bass than 3.56sse2. better bass=richer sound.

my favorite bass version is actually the ancient mqn.exe2.2

do you find 3.56 bright? if so, something else is causing it.

.................................

No I don't find 3.56 bright, necessarily.......
I do however believe there are more musical versions available.

I also believe many listeners on this forum prefer leaner and more clinical rendering to me which is fine.
I would hazard to guess these listeners favour mostly Classical music.

Today I listened to MQN 3.56 for a few hours. After some time MQN became fatiguing.
I didn't experience this when I switched across to playpcmwin.
Both were outputting via my Yellowtec PUC2 lite (USB to AES/spdif) to my NOS TDA1541a DAC.

JC, I would also not consider my system bright.
It is however quite neutral and resolving.

My speakers use the seas H1262-08 MCA15RCY midrange driver which has an pretty flat 'in room' response.
My SB acoustic tweeter is also detailed and quite sweet... It has a nice 'flattish' off axis response to 15k (+3/-3db in room @ listening position) quickly thereafter it rolls off due to my listening position.

Look MQN has so many versions its just about system matching..... I also believe 'user' mood plays a BIG role in how something sounds... at a 'captured' point in time.

Like I said before, there will never be one perfect version of MQN.
2CA

jesuscheung wrote:

Aleg wrote:
3.60 avx 128 1024 is overly bass heavy.
Bass overpowers all other tonal ranges.
No balance.
Cannot even begin to compare to other avx versions because other tonal ranges are not clearly distinguishable to be able to compare to other avx versions.

Cheers

Aleg

yes 3.60 avx isn't good.
struggles with fast drum

LOL - I would probably like this Version!!!!!
If only I had a machine capable of playing AVX versions.

2channelaudio wrote: Today I listened to MQN 3.56 for a few hours. After some time MQN became fatiguing.
I didn't experience this when I switched across to playpcmwin.
Both were outputting via my Yellowtec PUC2 lite (USB to AES/spdif) to my NOS TDA1541a DAC.

JC, I would also not consider my system bright.
It is however quite neutral and resolving.

quickly tested playpcmwin64. yes, not lean.
mqn is lean because affinity is changed. (in my much earlier post, i called it strain. same thing)
restore mqn 3.56 to affinity to full. not lean. maybe a bit... that's what i do.
when you fix processes onto one core only, it strains the sound, seems as though more crispy/clean, actually bass is less.
glad someone has same experience as me, finally.

EDIT
uploaded FullAffinity.exe
https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B9ZK ... ERHWTJXYjA

i made it to restore affinity of processes. only tested on my i7.
i run it everytime after mqn is started

asked about the 10ms period size

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eer ... eriod.aspx

sbgk 23 May 2014 5:11 AM
Hi,

You say that "The audio engine tries to run at as close to a 10 millisecond cadence as possible". Is this because the user has requested a 10 millisecond period or is it a general rule that the audio engine works best at 10 milliseconds period and 10 milliseconds should be used where possible ?

Maurits [MSFT] 23 May 2014 7:40 AM
Good question.

There isn't really a good reason for the 10ms cadence. Some hardware has a natural cadence corresponding to packet size (e.g., USB is 1ms). Some audio software sources and sinks would like higher or lower cadences, or even a variable cadence. And sometimes Windows likes to shut *everything* down for a while so it can do something like reprogram firmware in the network card.

So 10ms is a good compromise solution. It's fast enough for voice communication but slow enough for the power guys.

so, maybe 512 samples is a better compromise as it's more aligned to 4k page size.

have uploaded 3.61 which is a 448 10ms version

and a 512 version for comparison (requires the 3.61 512 control)

Which control for 3.61? 1.6? The recent control seems to have been pulled.