Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:

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

Aleg you really need to stop insinuating that your preferences are 'truthful' while others aren't. It's getting old.

wushuliu wrote:

Aleg wrote:

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

Aleg you really need to stop insinuating that your preferences are 'truthful' while others aren't. It's getting old.

I know, but I have to keep repeating them because MQn is degrading where it used to be exceptional and people are starting to see mqn as a tonal control to mask flaws.

That is bad imho.

And what has your contribution been to the development of Mqn sofar ???

Aleg wrote: 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

agree
smoothing over micro detail is not the way to make the best player
to get to the next level people will have to put a little work into their pc, as least that way we can move forward, makes comparisons easier and most of all makes the music more enjoyable
it always amazes me the amount of guys on jplay doing extensive work on their audio pcs, their not even using the best player and their lining out with 3m sheets at €50 a sheet
expecting too much of software i think

I find the versions that Aleg prefers to be unlistenable to even when it's just headphones plugged into the laptop.

I am going to run a utility that gives the following

EXEC : instructions per nominal CPU cycle
IPC : instructions per CPU cycle
FREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
AFREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency while in active state (not in power-saving C state)='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks while in C0-state' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
L3MISS: L3 cache misses
L2MISS: L2 cache misses (including other core's L2 cache *hits*)
L3HIT : L3 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L2HIT : L2 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L3CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to L3 cache misses (0.00-1.00)
L2CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to missing L2 cache but still hitting L3 cache (0.00-1.00)
READ : bytes read from memory controller (in GBytes)
WRITE : bytes written to memory controller (in GBytes)
TEMP : Temperature reading in 1 degree Celsius relative to the TjMax temperature (thermal headroom): 0 corresponds to the max temperature

so that different versions can be compared. I feel that 3.14 etc will have poorer figures, shall see if there is any correlation.

the 3.92 laptop version works on a realtek device with headphones plugged into a laptop

I'm not saying any version is the finished article, am just interested in if there are any worthwhile developments that might be used. 3.92 had 3 differences to 3.83, which is maybe too many.

sbgk wrote:I find the versions that Aleg prefers to be unlistenable to even when it's just headphones plugged into the laptop.

I am going to run a utility that gives the following

EXEC : instructions per nominal CPU cycle
IPC : instructions per CPU cycle
FREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
AFREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency while in active state (not in power-saving C state)='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks while in C0-state' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
L3MISS: L3 cache misses
L2MISS: L2 cache misses (including other core's L2 cache *hits*)
L3HIT : L3 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L2HIT : L2 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L3CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to L3 cache misses (0.00-1.00)
L2CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to missing L2 cache but still hitting L3 cache (0.00-1.00)
READ : bytes read from memory controller (in GBytes)
WRITE : bytes written to memory controller (in GBytes)
TEMP : Temperature reading in 1 degree Celsius relative to the TjMax temperature (thermal headroom): 0 corresponds to the max temperature

so that different versions can be compared. I feel that 3.14 etc will have poorer figures, shall see if there is any correlation.

the 3.92 laptop version works on a realtek device with headphones plugged into a laptop

I'm not saying any version is the finished article, am just interested in if there are any worthwhile developments that might be used. 3.92 had 3 differences to 3.83, which is maybe too many.

I think it is because of listening to music with a headphone on a laptop.

Music is not produced to be listened to with headphones.
Laptops are the most noisy hardware there is.

Aleg,

I can see your quite passionate about MQN...

Just so we are on the same page.
I like 3.14.... as I do 3.34 and a few other versions like 2.59....
I can listen to many different rev's in my system and be quite happy with what I am hearing.
Like I have said many times over... their are many versions of Mqn which I like alot.

I'll repeat again... I have said this a few times now....
This is not a matter of being unable to use more analytical versions of Mqn in my system due to source/equipment limitations......
I simply prefer rendering software that walks a balanced line between detail retrieval and musicality. end of story

The real issue is our subjective listening preferences seem to be opposed.
Your preference seems to be for more analytical versions of MQN, the more detail is better viewpoint, throw it all out there.
Just so we are clear, I too like detail too, but not at the detriment of musicality or spectrum balance (I.e. not lean).

3.14 is good Aleg I like it, it does some things better than 3.92.... but on the flip side so does Rev 3.92.

Aleg, which previous version of Mqn last suited your listening preferences? I'm curious

At the end of the day I'm not saying 3.92 is the best mqn rev, I simply I listened to 3.92 for a few hours today, so I decided to leave my impressions. Yes I prefer it.

Look Aleg your entitled to push for a more analytic presentation. Everyone has a subjective opinion.
Its up to SBGK to sail the ship.

But trying to highlight other users systems as inferior to yours to justify your position is just wrong.

Audio is subjective, I think you are looking for a single ultimate version of Mqn.. that somehow suits all listeners..
This I'm afraid is highly improbable.

Curious to understand which version of Mqn was the last to be on the right track....
Cheers

sbgk wrote:I find the versions that Aleg prefers to be unlistenable to even when it's just headphones plugged into the laptop.

I am going to run a utility that gives the following

EXEC : instructions per nominal CPU cycle
IPC : instructions per CPU cycle
FREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
AFREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency while in active state (not in power-saving C state)='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks while in C0-state' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
L3MISS: L3 cache misses
L2MISS: L2 cache misses (including other core's L2 cache *hits*)
L3HIT : L3 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L2HIT : L2 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
L3CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to L3 cache misses (0.00-1.00)
L2CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to missing L2 cache but still hitting L3 cache (0.00-1.00)
READ : bytes read from memory controller (in GBytes)
WRITE : bytes written to memory controller (in GBytes)
TEMP : Temperature reading in 1 degree Celsius relative to the TjMax temperature (thermal headroom): 0 corresponds to the max temperature

so that different versions can be compared. I feel that 3.14 etc will have poorer figures, shall see if there is any correlation.

the 3.92 laptop version works on a realtek device with headphones plugged into a laptop

I'm not saying any version is the finished article, am just interested in if there are any worthwhile developments that might be used. 3.92 had 3 differences to 3.83, which is maybe too many.

Great.
This will help
But subjective preference is the real issue at hand.
I guess science will help quantify/explain any audible differences.

2channelaudio wrote: 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
...

yes. decay is definitely less than norm. need more drum depth, vocal depth.

i already maximized my setup for decay through tweakings. it is up to mqn to do its job now

need to keep the leanless sound of 3.92. very important for longer listen.

Aleg wrote: I think it is because of listening to music with a headphone on a laptop.

Music is not produced to be listened to with headphones.
Laptops are the most noisy hardware there is.

I notice live music doesn't sound digital, funny that

The problem is detail doesn't mix well with noise and jitter
Computers weren't designed for audio, actually it's probably the worst place to get audio out of mostly down to noise and noise induced jitter

When you improve the noise issue in your PC's it vastly improves the musicality of the detail not to mention lowering the noise floor and revealing all that was hidden below it
I believe that if we were listening to these versions on the same or similar improved audio pc system we'd all be more agreeable
Best buddies and peace and harmony would be restored