Tír Na HiFi

I had a very enjoyable afternoon listening to 3.83 and so far looking like the best version, very unforgiving on poorly recorded material but excellent on good recordings.
I set it up in MQNLoad with MQNControl 512, Tasker running off bat file and also with Aleg's bat file using 512 ProAudio clock rate setting to keep everything aligned and all divisible by 32 for windows and 32 bit DAC....probably makes no sense and does not stack up in OS terms but sounds good to me!

Think I will stick with this for a while :-)

uploaded 3.84, which is 3.83 with a few instructions changed for others, can't test at the moment, is it any better ?

Systematically tested where I left off last time from 3.80 onwards... 3.80 wasn't too bad, a bit like 3.78, somewhat harsh...
3.81 and 3.82 were really bad, then... I can only concur on 3.83, very smooth, good timing, detailed...

I decided to test some of my favourite avx's of the past few months: 3.83 vs 3.75 vs 3.27 vs 3.14 vs golden oldie 100000

I first tested which control sounds best with these versions. In my system 3.83 and 3.75 work best with control 3.61 512, while the older 3.14 and 3.27 work best with control 1024, and 100000 with 100000 of course.

I am still in awe of the 100K combo. It lacks detail compared with later versions, but what perfect timing, what musicality, effortless and smooth and exciting. Still, detail adds dimension and richness and... flavour to music, so digging deeper into the layers of the musical structure is a worthwhile quest.

After a few test tracks it quickly became clear that 3.27 was the least good of the later versions (I wouldn't dare to use the term worst of the bunch, because all these versions were milestones in their own right). It's a tad coloured and ever so slightly distorted compared to the others.

Next came 3.75, a well balanced version and best of the seventies, but 3.83 is similar and overall plainly better.

So only 2 versions left in the big finale (imagine a dark deep booming voice):

In one corner, please welcome... the brand new contender, the smooth, the liquid, the fast and furious three point eighty threeeeeeeee!

And in the other corner the very popular, universally loved, long term favourite three point fourteeeeeeeeen!

YAAAAAAAY!!! :-)

Sorry about that. Had a long day of work and feel a bit silly. Time for bed... :-)

Oh, and the contestants did have it out for a few rounds, but to be honest, they were both doing such a wonderful job in their own right, and they both drew me into the music so quickly, that I found it really hard to decide which one I liked better.

I guess we'll have a little break... and have a rematch soon... to be continued...

P.S. also working on a post on binaural conversion, will put it in a new thread in one of the coming days

satshanti wrote:Systematically tested where I left off last time from 3.80 onwards... 3.80 wasn't too bad, a bit like 3.78, somewhat harsh...
3.81 and 3.82 were really bad, then... I can only concur on 3.83, very smooth, good timing, detailed...

I decided to test some of my favourite avx's of the past few months: 3.83 vs 3.75 vs 3.27 vs 3.14 vs golden oldie 100000

I first tested which control sounds best with these versions. In my system 3.83 and 3.75 work best with control 3.61 512, while the older 3.14 and 3.27 work best with control 1024, and 100000 with 100000 of course.

I am still in awe of the 100K combo. It lacks detail compared with later versions, but what perfect timing, what musicality, effortless and smooth and exciting. Still, detail adds dimension and richness and... flavour to music, so digging deeper into the layers of the musical structure is a worthwhile quest.

After a few test tracks it quickly became clear that 3.27 was the least good of the later versions (I wouldn't dare to use the term worst of the bunch, because all these versions were milestones in their own right). It's a tad coloured and ever so slightly distorted compared to the others.

Next came 3.75, a well balanced version and best of the seventies, but 3.83 is similar and overall plainly better.

So only 2 versions left in the big finale (imagine a dark deep booming voice):

In one corner, please welcome... the brand new contender, the smooth, the liquid, the fast and furious three point eighty threeeeeeeee!

And in the other corner the very popular, universally loved, long term favourite three point fourteeeeeeeeen!

YAAAAAAAY!!! :-)

Sorry about that. Had a long day of work and feel a bit silly. Time for bed... :-)

Oh, and the contestants did have it out for a few rounds, but to be honest, they were both doing such a wonderful job in their own right, and they both drew me into the music so quickly, that I found it really hard to decide which one I liked better.

I guess we'll have a little break... and have a rematch soon... to be continued...

P.S. also working on a post on binaural conversion, will put it in a new thread in one of the coming days

Satshanti

A great descriptive comparison again.
Agree with your final conclusions.
Just noticed Gordon released another 3 versions last night 3.84-3.86.
Hope to give a listen to them later today.

Cheers

Aleg

jkeny wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:

jkeny wrote:...
It does logically raise the concern about just how much affect an application can have on the sound when little control can be exercised over these various background tasks?
....

software player isn't supposed to negate the noise/jitter injected by background tasks.

if people don't deal with them, hehe, good luck... buy a better DAC, and hope that your luck will change

if you have a choice bwtween a and b, you always choose the better one. audio cannot get that much worse even with all the junks exist in windows

I'm not sure what point you're making, JC?
My point was that the MQN application audibly improves playback despite the limitations of the general purpose Windows OS - how much better could it sound if using an OS designed with audio in mind? Maybe it wouldn't sound any better but it makes me wonder.

Anyway, this is probably OT ?

you asked "how much affect an application can have on the sound when little control can be exercised over these various background tasks?"

i trying to tell you, given all these background tasks, MQn is supposed to sound worse if MQn is designed with zero compromise.
yet it sounds better!

i feel that mqn is still at infancy. mqn is like some headphones/speakers with little need of a good amp. get it?

hope i didn't offense anyone as i always do. haha

3.83 > 3.84
3.83 > 3.85
3.83 > 3.86

is 3.83 missing stage depth?

EDIT

think something is wrong with stage of 3.8x.
think 3.7x has better stage.

3.84 sounds heavy and very tired.
3.86 has a very bad bass, booming, overpowering and no structure. Have to turn music off with this version.
3.85 also a bad bass, again booming and structrueless, not as extreme as 3.86 but for me unlistenable nonetheless.

3.83 is very well balanced and musical, a very enjoyable release.

you asked "how much affect an application can have on the sound when little control can be exercised over these various background tasks?"

i trying to tell you, given all these background tasks, MQn is supposed to sound worse if MQn is designed with zero compromise.
yet it sounds better!

i feel that mqn is still at infancy. mqn is like some headphones/speakers with little need of a good amp. get it?

hope i didn't offense anyone as i always do. haha

In what way do you mean MQn is still in its infancy? What avenues do you think Gordon has not explored that will turn it into an adult?

As promised, I just created a new thread on the conversion of stereo to binaural for listening through headphones.

Have fun with it!

Just had a bit of a good route around in the new versions

Think we need to go back to 10 ms
All magic gone

Old 100000 even seems better
2.96
2.97
3.14
3.39
All seem better to me
Lost our way?