Tír Na HiFi

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 3.68 avx 128 512

hopefully cured the too digital issues

think the aim is that good recordings will be rewarded, so no apologies if some music sounds crap

did we test a 256 before?
cant remember
dont rember been inspired by the last run of 512's

I like it, costs nothing to try.

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 3.68 avx 128 512

hopefully cured the too digital issues

think the aim is that good recordings will be rewarded, so no apologies if some music sounds crap

did we test a 256 before?
cant remember
dont rember been inspired by the last run of 512's

I like it, costs nothing to try.

Not done any comparison yet, but on itself the 3.68 avx 128 512 sounds pretty good.

Cheers

Aleg

3.68avx 128 512 with Control 1.61 512 sounds way too strained here, in fact it really sounded terrible and I was not hearing music anymore, all the strong transients and sharp percussion in the music were amped up to an uncomfortable level, way too fierce.
I pulled up 3.14avx on the same control and I was hearing music again.

I am hearing real stark differences in versions of MQN again which is a good thing and sadly I am not liking recent versions so far on my system, maybe 32 bit DAC does not work so well with where there latest versions are going!

Will try again tomorrow without tasker in the chain to see if it makes a difference.
Cheers, Pearse.

Sligolad wrote:3.68avx 128 512 with Control 1.61 512 sounds way too strained here, in fact it really sounded terrible and I was not hearing music anymore, all the strong transients and sharp percussion in the music were amped up to an uncomfortable level, way too fierce.
I pulled up 3.14avx on the same control and I was hearing music again.

I am hearing real stark differences in versions of MQN again which is a good thing and sadly I am not liking recent versions so far on my system, maybe 32 bit DAC does not work so well with where there latest versions are going!

Will try again tomorrow without tasker in the chain to see if it makes a difference.
Cheers, Pearse.

3.68 can certainly make well known tracks sound different, whether it is giving a correct presentation I don't know, but haven't heard anything like it before. Not getting strained sound here, lot's of detail which haven't heard before.

uploaded 3.70, 3.68 was a bit of an oddball

3.71 - forgot a setting in 3.70

can fall asleep listening to 3.71. warm. calm. smooth.
3.70 feels aggressive in comparison.

aleg, or anyone using R2, you might like to try disabling memory remap in bios.
it has the same effect as largesystemcache=1 in R2. and bigger.
it is either one way or another.
otherwise, the two things will negate each other.
i used to have that settings.

largesystemcache=1 + memory remap=false should benefit AVX versions.
because AVX versions tend to have high concentration of energy.

sbgk wrote:

Sligolad wrote:3.68avx 128 512 with Control 1.61 512 sounds way too strained here, in fact it really sounded terrible and I was not hearing music anymore, all the strong transients and sharp percussion in the music were amped up to an uncomfortable level, way too fierce.
I pulled up 3.14avx on the same control and I was hearing music again.

I am hearing real stark differences in versions of MQN again which is a good thing and sadly I am not liking recent versions so far on my system, maybe 32 bit DAC does not work so well with where there latest versions are going!

Will try again tomorrow without tasker in the chain to see if it makes a difference.
Cheers, Pearse.

3.68 can certainly make well known tracks sound different, whether it is giving a correct presentation I don't know, but haven't heard anything like it before. Not getting strained sound here, lot's of detail which haven't heard before.

SBGK do you run a NAD M51 dac by any chance?
I found this DAC smooths everything out, and really alters the natural presentation of music due to its 'extreme' oversampling.

Sligolad, what dac / usb to spdif converter / pc sound card are you running..?

I hope see2 versions are coming?

I am really enjoying MQN 2.59, 3.43 and 3.56see2.....
I find 3.43 offers superior musicality/richness and balance over 3.56see2. The main difference is through the midrange.
But 3.56see2 is great when I want detail over a more musical presentation.

Well done SBGK really, excellent work.

London grammar is sounding very nice open, transparent and dynamic.
Bass is excellent (without good bass everything else falls down!) and female vocals sound smooth and cut through with edge when the recording demands.

Staging is holographic, airy and transparency is excellent.

Well done SBGK.....
Any chance 3.71 will be released as an see2 version, I would like to hear any changes.
Cheers guys.

3.71 avx is textureless on my setup, a sound blob with no instrumental features and character. The sound of acoustical instruments could have been made with anything, no instrumental character is discernable in the sound.


Back to 3.27 avx.

@JC: Server 2012R2 has as default setting LargeSystemCache = 1 and Size = 3, so no changes required there.

Cheers
Aleg