Tír Na HiFi

Is everyone using the same mqn control revision?
Can we agree on a control rev? moving forward.

At the very least we should all be testing with the same mqn control file,
to provide more meaningful feedback.

2channelaudio wrote:Is everyone using the same mqn control revision?
Can we agree on a control rev? moving forward.

At the very least we should all be testing with the same mqn control file,
to provide more meaningful feedback.

You could start with mentioning the one you use! :-)


My favourite avx versions which I use daily (3.14 mostly) are run with mqncontrol from the 2.97-zip release which is unspecified but is probably mqncontrol-1.7

For testing purposes only on the new and non-favourite releases, I take the latest mqncontrol that comes with it so that would be mqncontrol.exe 3.61 512 for the latest 512-range of mqnplay versions.

Aleg wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:Is everyone using the same mqn control revision?
Can we agree on a control rev? moving forward.

At the very least we should all be testing with the same mqn control file,
to provide more meaningful feedback.

You could start with mentioning the one you use! :-)


My favourite avx versions which I use daily (3.14 mostly) are run with mqncontrol from the 2.97-zip release which is unspecified but is probably mqncontrol-1.7

For testing purposes only on the new and non-favourite releases, I take the latest mqncontrol that comes with it so that would be mqncontrol.exe 3.61 512 for the latest 512-range of mqnplay versions.

I use the same mqncontrol file.
I plan on listening to the latest files tomorrow.
I haven't listened yet.

From the feedback I believe the latest ones might be to my taste.
We'll see.
cheers

In my ears "mqncontrol.exe 3.61 512" is the best (=clean and neutral) sounding version.

ATM , I'm using control 1.6 .

But I would be very interested in using a common control file AND and any number of agreed music files.

Minor finding:

Radiohead has a track called 2+2=5 . This will not play in MQN as is. The album
will not play nor will the track if selected as an individual file.

Renaming the track with words : two plus two equals file fixes both . Album plays as does
individual track. I'm going back to previous files that don't play and see if the filename contains numbers,
particularly the first character, to see if this is a universal phenomenon.

3.92 reminds me a lot of older versions of MQN.
Tonally it is much more accurate to the recording.
Far less digital than latter rev's of MQn.

I think JC is right a little shine is gone, but I would argue this shine was/is artificial.
What we are left with is an amazing rich and analog sounding revision of Mqn.

I am with SBJK, its very good.
It walks a nice line between detail and musicality.
My toe is tapping again.

Test tracks:

Jeff Buckley
Everybody here wants you.

London Grammar
Hey Now

Chrs Isaak
Go walking down there

Michael Franti & Spearhead\Stay Human
Do Ya Love

Radiohead\Amnesiac
Packet like Sardines

DECAY AND MICRO DETAIL
3.92 Has lost a small amount/level of micro detail/decay
Snare decay is reduced.... but the overall presentation is much more natural and analog v's 3.14 for instance.
I will however say 3.14 sounds immediately more impressive, but is it accurate?!
I prefer 3.92 on a longer listen

IMAGE / STAGING
3.92 is still holographic but not as much as 3.14, it is more restrained.
I believe this is because high frequencies are under control.
Still very nice but with less micro detail

BASS
3.92 Bass is awesome, punchy and tight
Depth and extension is very good
Bass tone and detail - I have no complaints

VOCALS MID & HIGHS
Treble is alot sweeter but still very detailed. Ver 3.14 which although gives slightly more detail is harder in comparison.
Vocals are much more natural on 3.92 V's 3.14
Lows are extended but very reactive and tight
3.92 males vocals are full/rich
Playing Michael Franti is getting my head nodding. I like it
3.92 kills rev 3.14 for funk so much more natural
Detail is there but it is possibly more correct

SBJK 3.92 is in the right direction!!! Love it... Mqn is sounding natural and musical
My two bob

My impressions exactly.

m5lig wrote:Minor finding:

Radiohead has a track called 2+2=5 . This will not play in MQN as is. The album
will not play nor will the track if selected as an individual file.

Renaming the track with words : two plus two equals file fixes both . Album plays as does
individual track. I'm going back to previous files that don't play and see if the filename contains numbers,
particularly the first character, to see if this is a universal phenomenon.

Yep same problem here....
If you take the '=' value out of the title it plays fine...
Can we possibly fix this SBJK?

2channelaudio wrote: ...

DECAY AND MICRO DETAIL
3.92 Has lost a small amount/level of micro detail/decay
Snare decay is reduced....
...

IMAGE / STAGING
3.92 is still holographic but not as much as 3.14, it is more restrained.
...
Still very nice but with less micro detail

...
VOCALS MID & HIGHS
Treble is alot sweeter but still very detailed. Ver 3.14 which although gives slightly more detail is harder in comparison.
...

I agree with the description of the losses.
The fact that these are described as an improvement, is for me indicative of a bad hardware setup in the computer area of the playback chain.

Also the desciption of analog characteristics as preferable to detailed representation is for me also an indication that we aim for different targets.
Often analogue character is refering to 'vinyl-like' (I don't know for sure if that is what is meant) but vinyl is a very limited and restricted playback medium, so should imho never be used as an example of good playback for the modern era.

I see again the rift opening between people seeking for truthfull and detailed extraction of music from a digital recording and people looking for a tonal control in the digital domain which makes the music sounds nice and beautiful on their gear.

Sorry to put it like this, but I only see diversion and deviation from the original qualities of MQn