Tír Na HiFi

sima66 wrote:Aleg.

Are you still using the old 2.71 for HiRez?

Sima

No, for me it is R1.1 512.
An oldie but there have no recent releases of 32-bit container versions.

Though an avx 3.14 in 32-bit container would make me happy and will make me stop looking for more.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

sima66 wrote:Aleg.

Are you still using the old 2.71 for HiRez?

Sima

No, for me it is R1.1 512.
An oldie but there have no recent releases of 32-bit container versions.

Though an avx 3.14 in 32-bit container would make me happy and will make me stop looking for more.

Cheers

Aleg

I found the R1.1 512 a bit to heavy on bass, that's why I'm still on 2.71 Time 1 (only for HiRez).

Looks like now is just you and me in need for 32 bit containers! Even Pearse left us! :)))

Still here in spirit Adam but away from my system for the week....stuck in New Jersey with work but looking forward to getting home and listening to some 16/44 on MQN at the weekend.

I think I have come to the end of the road with 24 bit development as I am not hearing improvements lately so I will just play the waiting game until Gordon gets time to release a 32 bit version on whichever version we finally land on.
Some of the more recent 24 bit MQN releases are sounding a little too hard on my 32 bit DAC so maybe they work better on the 24 bit DACs therefore I am listening mainly to 3.14avx, 3.40sse and 3.63sse i think from memory as they sound more musical to me.

Donation ready and waiting..........:-)

Cheers, Pearse.

Sligolad wrote:Still here in spirit Adam but away from my system for the week....stuck in New Jersey with work but looking forward to getting home and listening to some 16/44 on MQN at the weekend.

I think I have come to the end of the road with 24 bit development as I am not hearing improvements lately so I will just play the waiting game until Gordon gets time to release a 32 bit version on whichever version we finally land on.
Some of the more recent 24 bit MQN releases are sounding a little too hard on my 32 bit DAC so maybe they work better on the 24 bit DACs therefore I am listening mainly to 3.14avx, 3.40sse and 3.63sse i think from memory as they sound more musical to me.

Donation ready and waiting..........:-)

Cheers, Pearse.

OK, I misunderstood that after changing the board on your DAC, now you don't need the 32 bit version anymore. Only a 24 bit.

If you cross the border in Canada (Toronto area) you are more than welcome to came by for a glass of Slivovitza.........

Best,
Adam

I did some more testing of various avx combo's the last few days. So far it's a tie between 3.27 and 3.72, both with control 1024 and tasker. I'm not sure about Aleg's 448 clock addition. It does something to the sound that's both positive and negative. More testing is needed there.

I used my headphone setup. My DDDAC started smoking a while back so I ordered a new DAC. As I have been really happy with my HiFimeDIY UD20 DDX amp, I ordered the affordable Sabre DAC 2 from them and after some 100 hours of burn-in, it starts sounding really good. I power it from a 12V SLA battery. I plug in my headphones directly as it has a headphone output.

What I do to prepare the selected track from my mostly 16/44 music library is convert it to a binaural WAV with Foobar before I play it. Over the years I've tested and fine-tuned the optimal settings in the DSP plugin chain, and by now it's really a very realistic stereo-to-binaural conversion. I've got some original binaurally recorded tracks as well, and these conversions come very close, depending of course on how the music was recorded. It works better on some tracks than on others.

The reason I tell you all this, is that after the whole conversion it's better to upsample to whole things to 96 Khz with SOX and output it in 24-bit rather than 16-bit dither. So yesterday I compared the best of the 16/44 MQn with the latest working 24-bit version 2.99. This is of course a somewhat older version, but it was clearly better than 16/44, even more solid sound stage, more micro-detail.

Now I'm really eager to find out what a 24/96 version of MQn 3.72 would sound like.... :-)

I must say, I just couldn't stop listening yesterday night, it sounded so amazing!

satshanti wrote: The reason I tell you all this, is that after the whole conversion it's better to upsample to whole things to 96 Khz with SOX and output it in 24-bit rather than 16-bit dither. So yesterday I compared the best of the 16/44 MQn with the latest working 24-bit version 2.99. This is of course a somewhat older version, but it was clearly better than 16/44, even more solid sound stage, more micro-detail.

Now I'm really eager to find out what a 24/96 version of MQn 3.72 would sound like.... :-)

I must say, I just couldn't stop listening yesterday night, it sounded so amazing!

if lucky, jitter is upsampled into better form. when not so lucky, jitter is upsampled into worse jitter.

nige2000 wrote:well ive two problems
one im busier than usual and the other ive broke all my motherboards trying to figure out a three clock replacement, i might have to pull my horns in and go with two
what really sickens me is ive already heard three working its just been unreliable :((
maybe ill park the project for a few wks clear the head

And were the 3 clocks better then 2 replaced?

sebna wrote:

nige2000 wrote:well ive two problems
one im busier than usual and the other ive broke all my motherboards trying to figure out a three clock replacement, i might have to pull my horns in and go with two
what really sickens me is ive already heard three working its just been unreliable :((
maybe ill park the project for a few wks clear the head

And were the 3 clocks better then 2 replaced?

Yes the third one was particularly interesting it was running the internal usb 3 header which is my os
Means nothing if I can't get It stable
Will try again

uploaded 3.73 512, should sound better than the recent ones.

JC what xa heap-stack settings were you using ? do you have a link to the xa article ?

sbgk wrote:uploaded 3.73 512, should sound better than the recent ones.

JC what xa heap-stack settings were you using ? do you have a link to the xa article ?

I think it sounds very good.
It has a somewhat different tonal balance than say avx 3.14, midrange is more strong, which should please a lot of the beauty followers ;-), and that makes the cymbals a bit less shining and less present, and overall colour is slightly darker and warmer.
The details and reverb are very good.

---
Edit:

I would like to hear a bit more texture in the sound, i.e. a bit sooner so not just in the passages that have it very strongly but also in passages where it is not present as strongly but still there. In these latter situations it is not always very easy discernable.

Still a very pleasing version


Cheers

Aleg