Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:

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

yes definitely was the case for a long time
but think mqn might have gone as far as it can on std pc's
hardware needs a upgrade for the 2nd evolution of mqn

maybe some of us think this detailed mqn on improved pc's might be the best sq out there atm
(bit of a ludicrous statement when you haven't heard everything)
hence all the enthusiasm

dont think its down to personal taste
yet again its detail that doesn't mix well with noisy pcs, its the noise that needs to go not the detail

why not make a 10ms version? it was so easily to make good sound. i think most people was happy

(might as well make a 8ms for me. hehehe)

jesuscheung wrote:why not make a 10ms version? it was so easily to make good sound. i think most people was happy

(might as well make a 8ms for me. hehehe)

8ms never tried one would be interesting

I can't say that I tried every version, especially last 6-8 weeks being in transition with my gear, but in general, I could say easily that versions Aleg likes are the best sounding in my system too. The other thing I would like to mention is, since I've got Hugo, I am noticing way less difference between versions as well as between different players or computer tweaks. That little dac is so good and different than anything else on the market right now, I guess.
I said to Aleg in a PM yesterday, that I can't wait to hear from him about findings on Hugo, simply because he'll go deeply into analysis and comparisons. I am not that good...

2channelaudio wrote:

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
;)

I agree 100% with Nigel.
Improving motherboards, LPS's, cables, isulations, etc........ are not only "icing on the cake", they are a MUST for using PC like a source!
Isn't were everything starts?!
The more revealing the player, the more you can see the pros&cons in your system and in the recordings.
Improving all the above is the tiny line what makes that "digitalness" or "harshness" sounding like the best details.

"Analog sound" and "smoothness" can be achieved by tweaking the system in different ways, but ones when the details are lost, there is no tweak that can bring it back!
"Smoothing" the player is loosing the best details in the same time.

sima66 wrote:
I agree 100% with Nigel.
Improving motherboards, LPS's, cables, isulations, etc........ are not only "icing on the cake", they are a MUST for using PC like a source!
.

Sorry but as much as I respect what those guys are doing as a fellow DIY'er it should not be a must for me to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on Paul Pang Products, clocks, whatever flavor of the month cable/usb/card/SSD, power supply. etc. There is not enough consensus IMO on a lot of those items when it comes to MQN or even jplay. I need more than just a couple of guys' opinions on that stuff before I invest that kind of time and money. There are just too many variables.

wushuliu wrote:

sima66 wrote:
I agree 100% with Nigel.
Improving motherboards, LPS's, cables, isulations, etc........ are not only "icing on the cake", they are a MUST for using PC like a source!
.

Sorry but as much as I respect what those guys are doing as a fellow DIY'er it should not be a must for me to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on Paul Pang Products, clocks, whatever flavor of the month cable/usb/card/SSD, power supply. etc. There is not enough consensus IMO on a lot of those items when it comes to MQN or even jplay. I need more than just a couple of guys' opinions on that stuff before I invest that kind of time and money. There are just too many variables.

I think you should, if you aim for the best sound quality.
If you don't want to spend time and/or money (and it doesn't have to be big bucks, as Nigel is keeping it low cost afaik), you will have to accept that it will be less than best. And that will become apparent on revealing software and hifi gear.

You can't have it all for nothing.

Cheers

Aleg

Everything matters and it will effects the sound, but new generation of dacs already show that they are way more immune to the transport. You don't believe me, try Hugo first, and experiment...
Since I've got it, I stopped listening players, amps, speakers, 16/44, 24/192 and so on, I 've been listening music.
Try to think football, so someone is passing hard ball to a player with no skills, and to someone who's very well skilled. Who's gonna stop the ball between those two and continue action, or to score the goal?

Aleg wrote:

wushuliu wrote:

sima66 wrote:
I agree 100% with Nigel.
Improving motherboards, LPS's, cables, isulations, etc........ are not only "icing on the cake", they are a MUST for using PC like a source!
.

Sorry but as much as I respect what those guys are doing as a fellow DIY'er it should not be a must for me to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on Paul Pang Products, clocks, whatever flavor of the month cable/usb/card/SSD, power supply. etc. There is not enough consensus IMO on a lot of those items when it comes to MQN or even jplay. I need more than just a couple of guys' opinions on that stuff before I invest that kind of time and money. There are just too many variables.

I think you should, if you aim for the best sound quality.
If you don't want to spend time and/or money (and it doesn't have to be big bucks, as Nigel is keeping it low cost afaik), you will have to accept that it will be less than best. And that will become apparent on revealing software and hifi gear.

You can't have it all for nothing.

Cheers

Aleg

So MQN should be developed to satisfy 3 or 4 people (if that) with 'highly tuned' machines? Especially as the designer himself does not own any such machine?

I am all for the pursuit of low noise, improved audio performance via pc but I believe that constitutes a separate journey than determining how MQN should 'sound'.

As for your earlier snarky comment about my contribution to mqn that reminds I have not donated which I certainly should have done by now. So thanks.

wushuliu has a point but so do Nigel and Aleg. Wushuliu I have heard the differences when comparing Nigel's extra tweaked unit compared to mine.
Can see where he is coming from but what you are saying is 100% correct also. 99% of people will not get to that level(can't) as it is too bespoke to create
and requires level of knowledge well beyond the interest/expertise of most. A lot of people will also sit on the fence(me included) as the boat keeps sailing in different directions.

My tuppence worth is that MQn has peaked for the moment. I wish Gordon would provide a selection of the versions that people currently are happy with to allow
hires files be played. Take stock and then go again. I am caught using a new dac like cvrle59 so have stopped testing and also struggling with the onslaught of new versions.

On the new versions I am still using 3.14 and 3.27 and sometimes use 3.56 but haven't really bothered except briefly some of the 70's and 80 no's.
I find some of them too etched for me but Nigel would say that is noise on my pc.