Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:

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

Gordon

The same goes for me, live music never sounds dull and clogged up.
All tonal ranges are there with proper decays, you can hear the vibrations of the instruments and strings, you can hear with what kind of attack the piano keys are hit.
Cymbals are shining all the way to the final end.
Yes, trumpets can sound harsh in a live performance. Cymbal crashes can have a sharp attack to them.

And I can say that none of the mqn versions that I have preference for sound digital on my setups. So that seems to be a local problem that could be worth an investigation.

The direction of MQn is down to Gordon.

My take....the options seem to be either:
1. Make it sound optimal on highly tuned machines
Or
2. Make it sound optimal on typical machines

My view is that 2. is more use as spending time building transports isn't what most people will do and arguably windows is not the best starting point. Dedicated hardware and o/s is the really optimal route to go isn't it? But that wouldn't use MQn.

nige2000 wrote: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

lol
Probably true.
But I would say 98% of music listeners don't modify motherboards with alternate clocks, linear supplies etc.

I would argue MQn needs to sound 'excellent' on a standard windows and motherboard setup.
Benefits like linear power, BIOS tweaking, DIY whatever should be icing on the cake, not the normal from which we tune MQn against.
Don't get me wrong I love a nice serve of linear power, DIY cables, OS tweaking, whatever mods etc.

The fact remains that users who mod their motherboards are actually tuning their systems too, its no different to tonal/transparency changes/improvements provided by alternate software packages.

Its a little contradictory
;)

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:

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

Gordon

The same goes for me, live music never sounds dull and clogged up.
All tonal ranges are there with proper decays, you can hear the vibrations of the instruments and strings, you can hear with what kind of attack the piano keys are hit.
Cymbals are shining all the way to the final end.
Yes, trumpets can sound harsh in a live performance. Cymbal crashes can have a sharp attack to them.

And I can say that none of the mqn versions that I have preference for sound digital on my setups. So that seems to be a local problem that could be worth an investigation.

Aleg just so I have understanding..... what is your preferred music genre, that you listen to most?
Or test MQN with...

Clive wrote:The direction of MQn is down to Gordon.

My take....the options seem to be either:
1. Make if sound optimal on highly tuned machines
Or
2. Make it sound optimal on typical machines

My view is that 2. is more use as spending time building transports isn't what most people will do and arguably windows is not the best starting point. Dedicated hardware and o/s is the really optimal route to go isn't it? But that wouldn't use MQn.

My point exactly.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:

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

Gordon

The same goes for me, live music never sounds dull and clogged up.
All tonal ranges are there with proper decays, you can hear the vibrations of the instruments and strings, you can hear with what kind of attack the piano keys are hit.
Cymbals are shining all the way to the final end.
Yes, trumpets can sound harsh in a live performance. Cymbal crashes can have a sharp attack to them.

And I can say that none of the mqn versions that I have preference for sound digital on my setups. So that seems to be a local problem that could be worth an investigation.

either your system has some damping or you prefer a more analytical sound, have you considered those possibilities ? I've explained the aim of mqn as regards cache hits before, it so happens that the versions you like have high cache miss counts which I equate with digital sound.

Clive wrote:The direction of MQn is down to Gordon.

My take....the options seem to be either:
1. Make if sound optimal on highly tuned machines
Or
2. Make it sound optimal on typical machines

My view is that 2. is more use as spending time building transports isn't what most people will do and arguably windows is not the best starting point. Dedicated hardware and o/s is the really optimal route to go isn't it? But that wouldn't use MQn.

think it will sound good on whatever system is used, better on a better system

Clive wrote:The direction of MQn is down to Gordon.

My take....the options seem to be either:
1. Make if sound optimal on highly tuned machines
Or
2. Make it sound optimal on typical machines

My view is that 2. is more use as spending time building transports isn't what most people will do and arguably windows is not the best starting point. Dedicated hardware and o/s is the really optimal route to go isn't it? But that wouldn't use MQn.

people thinks old mqn.exe is noisy.
actually they are clean on "highly tuned machines".

if new mqn jitter response is same the old ones, we have little issues.

if jitters is converted to background noises = non-issue really = still listenable all day long = still analog

that's actually why i still use old mqn.exe

2channelaudio wrote:

Aleg wrote:

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

Gordon

The same goes for me, live music never sounds dull and clogged up.
All tonal ranges are there with proper decays, you can hear the vibrations of the instruments and strings, you can hear with what kind of attack the piano keys are hit.
Cymbals are shining all the way to the final end.
Yes, trumpets can sound harsh in a live performance. Cymbal crashes can have a sharp attack to them.

And I can say that none of the mqn versions that I have preference for sound digital on my setups. So that seems to be a local problem that could be worth an investigation.

Aleg just so I have understanding..... what is your preferred music genre, that you listen to most?
Or test MQN with...

2CA

That would be mostly:
- jazz: the traditional trios and vocals, solo instrumental (like piano, and double bass).
- classical music: chamber music (like string quartets and variants), vocal (like voice and piano), instrumental solo or concerti (piano, violin, cello)

Never any rock music or other pop music.
Only acoustic instruments and never electric instruments.

For testing purposes I have a collection of tracks I use to check for different aspects of sound, like instrumental decay, representation of acoustical space, micro detail in bass, mid and high, instrumental separation and build up of sound stage with musicians, tonal balance in a combo, balanced and detailed representation of instruments in order to show the interplay between musicians:
- string quartets
- cello solo
- jazz combo with voice
- jazz combo piano + double bass
- classical piano

Cheers

Aleg

sbgk wrote:
either your system has some damping or you prefer a more analytical sound, have you considered those possibilities ? I've explained the aim of mqn as regards cache hits before, it so happens that the versions you like have high cache miss counts which I equate with digital sound.

Certainly I like a more analytical sound, I have made no secret of my preferences.
The only thing is that many mqn-versions don't show details as well as the best versions do.

What could in your opinion be causing any 'dampening' in a system then?
I have always selected components on the basis of low jitter, transparent sound, over-spec wrt required capacity and cleanest power (I'm still working on further improving the power by using better LPSUs than I now use). OS-optimisations are focussed on balancing the chain and not going into extremes, to avoid strained systems.

Also my hifi gear is renowned for its good timing of the music. The so called PRaT is THE forté of Naim gear.

Every component change I have made conforms with these targets.

'Dampening' is an effect I'm not familiar with in the digital domain.